Tuned Agent wrote:This is, of course, how I (and seemingly others) interpreted the original statement. Sabrblade, feel free to correct me if my interpretation of your statement is incorrect.
Tuned Agent wrote:This is, of course, how I (and seemingly others) interpreted the original statement. Sabrblade, feel free to correct me if my interpretation of your statement is incorrect.
Shadowman wrote:This is Sabrblade we're talking about. His ability to store trivial information about TV shows is downright superhuman.
Caelus wrote:My wife pointed out something interesting about the prehistoric Predacons. I said that everyone was complaining because transforming for them mostly consisted of them just standing up-right. She essentially said, 'So? That's what our ancestors did.'
When the United States government repeals its toy gun laws.RotorstormNZ wrote:I'm sure I've said this before and am no doubt far from alone but...SS86 Megatron and Shockwave when?
Shadowman wrote:This is Sabrblade we're talking about. His ability to store trivial information about TV shows is downright superhuman.
Caelus wrote:My wife pointed out something interesting about the prehistoric Predacons. I said that everyone was complaining because transforming for them mostly consisted of them just standing up-right. She essentially said, 'So? That's what our ancestors did.'
william-james88 wrote:But those Starscreams won't be there a year from now and hasbro does not do buybacks, so everything will have been sold to consumers in one way or another. And we know that collectors are the ones who bought them first, while the rest are purchased for kids birthdays and christmas. So there are 10 SS86 Starscreams, 3 of them sold within the first month (most probably to older fans) and the rest stayed there for a long time. However, all will be sold after a 1 year cycle of birthdays and holidays.
So that's 3 out of 10 sold to older fans and 7 out of 10 to be sold for kids.
30% according to your own example, which is the same stat Hasbro gave.
So what am I not seeing?
Your examples have to do with what you are seeing selling (currently) on your shelf, but instead you have to look at the entire picture to get the true stat. Think back to all the toys that you chose not to buy (either because you didn't want or because you already had it) that you kept seeing on your shelf for months at a time a year ago, or two years ago, are they still on shelves now? Seeing that there are 7 starscreams out of 10 left means that there are 7 starscreams left for general public to buy once the older fans took the ones they wanted.
This is very similar to when I read fans saying "man there's so much cyberverse and its always on the shelf, not selling", which is a fallacy but it seems true to them because they choose recency bias (the same toys were there last week) rather than actually sitting down and looking at the facts.
We have a TF wiki that shows all the previously released Cyberverse figures and we have entertainment earth showing the case assortments for rereleases, of which there are plenty. Jot down all the figures released and then go to a shelf and check how many of those you still see on the shelf. All the ones you don't see have been sold. But it didn't appear that way because people forgot what the shelf looked like a year ago.
In the end, while I get your use of logic as a fan and what people may think, and going through that approach, the only facts that matter are sales, and Hasbro pays millions to keep abreast on that while none of us do. So that's what I go with too.
william-james88 wrote:I am just going by the facts Hasbro already told us and giving you concrete examples... but there is no evidence for (collectors being a significant demographic) so far.
Sabrblade wrote:Tuned Agent wrote:This is, of course, how I (and seemingly others) interpreted the original statement. Sabrblade, feel free to correct me if my interpretation of your statement is incorrect.
primalxconvoy wrote:Tuned Agent wrote:
And, as others have already pointed out, the statements "based directly on it in some fashion" and "based almost exclusively on" mean two different things.
And maybe, if someone's statement can be interpreted in multiple ways, clarification on what they meant should be asked for before you impose your own meaning on their words. Just a tip for future reference.
No.
The definition I gave was correct. The original use (and your erroneous interpretation) was not. No personal imposition was conducted. It is simply a matter of correct language knowledge or use.
primalxconvoy wrote:The facts have been presented to you. It's not my problem that you cannot grasp them.
primalxconvoy wrote:As for your views of "in (some) fashion":
This makes the use of "directly" oxymoronic, as one means "exactly", while the other means "in some unknown/indistinct/indirect way". Thus, it is akin to "definitely maybe" It is also similar to the idiom "In a fashion".
If the OP wanted to be succinct (and used similar lexis), they should have written something akin to "based largely upon" or "mainly fashioned upon".
primalxconvoy wrote:My point stands.
Sabrblade wrote:When the United States government repeals its toy gun laws.RotorstormNZ wrote:I'm sure I've said this before and am no doubt far from alone but...SS86 Megatron and Shockwave when?
So, never.
Tuned Agent wrote:The definition you gave was one of several (you provided the list yourself) that the word can mean depending on the context it's used.
The original post used one definition for the word. You, on the other hand, used a different definition that didn't fit the original context, and are now trying to claim that your definition is the only "correct" definition (even though you yourself provided several definitions). You are trying to impose your definition of a word on someone else's statement, and are ignoring correct language knowledge that a word can mean different things in different contexts.
The only facts that you have presented is a list of different definitions for the word "directly".
1. You are once again treating "exactly" as the only definition of "directly", which is false.
2. The "unknown/indistinct/indirect/maybe" part of your definition for "in some fashion" is nowhere in the source you provided. It was entirely imposed into the definition by you.
Gauntlet101010 wrote:Sabrblade wrote:When the United States government repeals its toy gun laws.RotorstormNZ wrote:I'm sure I've said this before and am no doubt far from alone but...SS86 Megatron and Shockwave when?
So, never.
Would that prevent Shockwave?
Although I like Siege as it is.
There's the old 3rd party Hegemon that serves as an unofficial gun mode Megs if you wanted to go that route.
Gauntlet101010 wrote:Sabrblade wrote:When the United States government repeals its toy gun laws.RotorstormNZ wrote:I'm sure I've said this before and am no doubt far from alone but...SS86 Megatron and Shockwave when?
So, never.
Would that prevent Shockwave?
Although I like Siege as it is.
There's the old 3rd party Hegemon that serves as an unofficial gun mode Megs if you wanted to go that route.
william-james88 wrote:To be fair, the person only asked about a Megatron and Shockwave released in the SS86 line, they don't have to turn into guns. The reason I see it as unlikely is because the SS86 line served to release bots or versions of bots that were not released in the other generations line, hence why I don't think we'd see a Megatron or Shockwave. Megatron especially since we got him in many G1 style decos.
primalxconvoy wrote:Tuned Agent wrote:The definition you gave was one of several (you provided the list yourself) that the word can mean depending on the context it's used.
Indeed. However, of those definitions, only one fits the context. Thus, your opinion is irrelevant. The facts, and my point, stand.
primalxconvoy wrote:The original post used one definition for the word. You, on the other hand, used a different definition that didn't fit the original context, and are now trying to claim that your definition is the only "correct" definition (even though you yourself provided several definitions). You are trying to impose your definition of a word on someone else's statement, and are ignoring correct language knowledge that a word can mean different things in different contexts.
Again, see above.The only facts that you have presented is a list of different definitions for the word "directly".
See above.
primalxconvoy wrote:1. You are once again treating "exactly" as the only definition of "directly", which is false.
2. The "unknown/indistinct/indirect/maybe" part of your definition for "in some fashion" is nowhere in the source you provided. It was entirely imposed into the definition by you.
See above.
primalxconvoy wrote:I'm sorry you lack the knowledge or intelligence to understand the correct usage of lexis. You are most welcome to engage in a higher level of education in the matter and I welcome you to return to the discussion when you are better prepared. Until then, your posts regarding this matter are simply irrelevant and will be ignored.
My points stand. As do the facts.
william-james88 wrote:Gauntlet101010 wrote:Sabrblade wrote:When the United States government repeals its toy gun laws.RotorstormNZ wrote:I'm sure I've said this before and am no doubt far from alone but...SS86 Megatron and Shockwave when?
So, never.
Would that prevent Shockwave?
Although I like Siege as it is.
There's the old 3rd party Hegemon that serves as an unofficial gun mode Megs if you wanted to go that route.
To be fair, the person only asked about a Megatron and Shockwave released in the SS86 line, they don't have to turn into guns. The reason I see it as unlikely is because the SS86 line served to release bots or versions of bots that were not released in the other generations line, hence why I don't think we'd see a Megatron or Shockwave. Megatron especially since we got him in many G1 style decos.
SpaceEagle wrote:primalxconvoy wrote:SpaceEagle wrote:Emerje used "directly" correctly...
Incorrect.
Oh huh, weird. I genuinely haven't seen people use it in that manner, now that's surprising!
Burn wrote:something, something...
Megatron would be the 1 who would have to turn into a gun, since that's what he was on screen. And that's the point of the SS lines, to be screen accurate, no? I mean it's 1 thing not to be able to replicate Age of Extinction Galvatron's "transformation" from the movie, but if SS86 Megatron wasn't a gun, what's the point of even including him? And apparently the designers have confirmed that we will not get a gun Megatron under any circumstances, so it's a moot point.william-james88 wrote:To be fair, the person only asked about a Megatron and Shockwave released in the SS86 line, they don't have to turn into guns. Megatron especially since we got him in many G1 style decos.
Burn wrote:Guys, please stop feeding him. It should be clearly obvious that he enjoys taking full advantage of the lack of Mods/Admins to break any forum rule he sees fit and to antagonise however many people he can.
Put him on your block list and you'll never have to deal with his crap again and we can all enjoy the actual point of each topic.
RodimusPrimeUkraine1 wrote:No point in insulting admins
Cyber Bishop wrote:RodimusPrimeUkraine1 wrote:No point in insulting admins
There are no admins here anymore, Burn's title is messed up as he stepped down a while ago, if it were right the words Forum Admin would be green.
blackeyedprime wrote:The only fight here, is going to be which un-iconic Ironhide figure is the best? ss86 or ssbee
-Kanrabat- wrote:blackeyedprime wrote:The only fight here, is going to be which un-iconic Ironhide figure is the best? ss86 or ssbee
No fights possible when comparing apples and oranges.
Unless one is that guy who will put tomatoes in a fruit salad because tomatoes are technically a fruit.
Return to Transformers Toys Discussion
Registered users: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], Google Feedfetcher, Majestic-12 [Bot], ScottyP, SketchyPluto, UltOrange, Yahoo [Bot]