You are being a pendant as far as I am concerned and arguing semantics with me is not going to convince me and many others.

So I suggest in future you should learn that using this line of logic (where you expect me to do something unreasonable to a huge number of people) is not something that people are going to put up with. It is really annoying to have to converse in this manner and in fact I believe that often that is wholly disingenuous and I no longer wish to speak to you.

▲

Dylan16807 7 hours ago | parent [-]

If I categorized these situations the way you do, and I said what I'm saying, I would be a pedant.

But I see things a different way. The logic I'm actually using is not pedantic.

You calling me disingenuous over this is painful to look at. Get out of your own head for a second. We're using different premises, and we're reaching different conclusions because of that. My logic is fine, and your logic is fine.

▲

JollySharp0 6 hours ago | parent [-]

> If I categorized these situations the way you do, and I said what I'm saying, I would be a pedant.

I am not categorising any situation. The vast majority of people would omit unreasonable options.

I could buy a racing bike that is £5000 new, for £200 when I live in London (back in 2000s). The bike would most likely would have been stolen. So technically I can buy a £5000 bike for £200. But most people wouldn't want to buy from a thief and consider it unethical.

People feel similarly about scalpers and other untrustworthy sellers.

> You calling me disingenuous over this is painful to look at. Get out of your own head for a second.

You started the conversation claiming I was outright lying. Then when I clarified to you what I meant you continued claiming I was lying/misstating. That is really annoying.

If you could have just said "okay that is fair, while you might have been doing X and Y, I can understand why you didn't want to do that". That would have been fine. But that didn't happen.

▲

Dylan16807 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> You started the conversation claiming I was outright lying. Then when I clarified to you what I meant you continued claiming I was lying/misstating. That is really annoying.

I said "If you were offering anywhere near 6x MSRP" I didn't believe you, and it turns out you weren't offering 6x MSRP. So I wasn't calling you a liar.

> If you could have just said "okay that is fair, while you might have been doing X and Y, I can understand why you didn't want to do that". That would have been fine. But that didn't happen.

So if I had explicitly said "I think it's fine you didn't use ebay" that would have fixed everything? Because I never argued about your personal choice, I argued about you calling ebay "unreasonable".

Well for the record, I was going to say something like that in response to "If you are going to be a smart arse, I will modify my statement to say "I could not get a card from a reputable online store as they were all out of stock and did not wish to risk buying from a less reputable one"."

But then I saw you had called me "hyper-pedantic" and I focused on rebuffing that attack instead.

Edit: And it doesn't help that you never actually did that modification, and instead keep insisting that what you originally said means the same thing.

	▲	JollySharp0 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> So if I had explicitly said "I think it's fine you didn't use ebay" that would have fixed everything? Because I never argued about your personal choice, I argued about you calling ebay "unreasonable". Ebay in itself isn't unreasonable. Ebay is unreasonable when the only sellers are untrustworthy sellers, when there was a bunch of scams at the time. Which there were. I've clarified this many times now. I don't care what interpretation is now of what I said. > Well for the record, I was going to say something like that in response to "If you are going to be a smart arse, I will modify my statement to say "I could not get a card from a reputable online store as they were all out of stock and did not wish to risk buying from a less reputable one"." I don't believe you. I've had plenty of stupid conversations like this, with plenty of tech nerds. Rarely happens with non-tech people. I spend some time in non-tech hobby spaces that are technical (Classic Car / Bike repairs) and this convo style never happens. People like yourself think you are being clever buy poking holes in everything that said. I am quite happy to be quite obnoxious in pointing this out. I am tired of it. I am this cantankerous IRL about this btw. The fact is that you could not buy a new graphics card in the UK for some time during COVID via almost every online retailers. I had conversations with other people in the UK that wanted to buy PC hardware and they were in the same situation. The same was true for the Pi 4 at the time. Making stupid semantic arguments doesn't change that fact. > Edit: And it doesn't help that you never actually did that modification, and instead keep insisting that what you originally said means the same thing. For all intents and purposes it is the same thing if you aren't engaging in pedantry and semantics. I try not to engage in it anymore (unless it is tit for tat), because I understand it pisses people off. You obviously don't care.

▲

jrflowers 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I like these many posts about how you, specifically, chose not to use any of the available systems to get a GPU that rapidly organized and became common globally during lockdown. The line from “I just didn’t feel like doing something once” through to “My predictions for the future about a different problem are obviously true” is clear as day. Can’t see why anyone would disagree

▲

JollySharp0 5 hours ago | parent [-]

> I like these many posts about how you, specifically, chose not to use any of the available systems to get a GPU that rapidly organized and became common globally during lockdown.

You like the other people are was arguing with are pretending that the options were reasonable. They weren't at the time. Many other people I know thought the same.

There was no stock for any GPU except for absolute crap on any of the retail sites in the UK. There are not many options in the UK generally. It is not like the US.

As far as I am concerned what you are engaging is effectively gas-lighting.

> The line from “I just didn’t feel like doing something once” through to “My predictions for the future about a different problem are obviously true” is clear as day. Can’t see why anyone would disagree

If you deliberately want to misunderstand what is said you could draw that conclusion. Which is blatantly what you are doing.

The only thing I claimed about the current high price DRAM situation is:

1) It is likely to get worse before it gets better (due to supply chain issues due to current wars). 2) It resolve itself over time and you should be patient and just make your existing stuff last as long as possible.

That is how any crisis often plays out and I was actually telling people in my original statement not to be all doom and gloom and just be patient. It will sort itself out. It won't be this year for sure.

▲

jrflowers 4 hours ago | parent [-]

My favorite part would have to be where you can’t remember the actual, structurally crucial piece of information that your argument rests on and just said that you didn’t feel like getting a GPU off eBay.

>I've had problems with it before (I can't remember specifics as it was a while ago). I'd rather not going through the hassle and/or risk in the first place.

As your evidence that

> Doomers IMO are just click baiting.

Like you admitted that you _do not remember_ why it was entirely unreasonable or impossible and are arguing against people that do possess memory of it being possible and reasonable enough for them at the time. Amazing stuff.

	▲	JollySharp0 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> My favorite part would have to be where you can’t remember the actual, structurally crucial piece of information that your argument rests on and just said that you didn’t feel like getting a GPU off eBay. You are misunderstanding what is being said. I suspect it is deliberate. It is often said that "Prevention is often better than the cure". Similarly it is often better not to risk spending your money unwisely than to have to go through processes to recover your money. It matters not what the specifics of the situation was (it happened a decade or more ago) I communicated that quite clearly. So you either didn't understand or you are deliberately misunderstanding what I said. > Like you admitted that you _do not remember_ why it was entirely unreasonable or impossible and are arguing against people that do possess memory of it being possible and reasonable enough for them at the time. Amazing stuff. I bet you felt really clever constructing that. However as explained the specifics weren't the point. Avoiding the process entirely for funds recovery is the point.