Replies to post #14459 on Left Behind Games (fka LFBG)

[Scott12]

re:"Heck, back when Eternal forces came out he said LFBG would be profitable within a year. That was 4 years ago. I think he is good at twisting words and statements that paint a pretty picture that never really gets finished if you know what I mean"

I know exactly what you mean. A great example of twisting words around can be found in a recent PR.
Here is a direct quote from Left Behind novel co-author, Dr. Tim LaHaye, who was recently quoted as saying “This may be for this generation that plays video games, the most powerful invention to reach their hearts and minds that’s been invented in our lifetime.”
That quote was taken from the Christmas holiday PR from a few weeks ago.


Now, read the endorsement Dr. Tim LaHaye gave for the Eternal forces game. It's practically word for word.
LEFT BEHIND author Tim LaHaye says, “ ... for those who are into video games, Eternal Forces is the #1 most powerful vehicle for their hearts and minds that’s been invented in our lifetime.”

Very similar wouldn't you say?

[righty]

well?????

what did walmart tell you?

arguing this debate is the most ridiculous attempt at saving grace I have ever seen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
More stores, more games, more chance of success. if correct, it's undeniable.

seems after talking to a few other longtime shareholders they seem to differ as well with a blanket national walmart campaign having taken place in 2006

i see noquit got a reply from the ceo confirming roundabout 200 stores

you see........ the compunction i have with the glorious argument of "the games wont sell now.... cuz they never did then"

and the lie about the "national campaign"

goes like this

if the insinuation is that the 2006 walmart campaign was national....but...as you suggested.....limited to the stores with "demand"

well then...without data from walmart as to how many stores actually carried the game....you have no choice but to accept the ceo's data right?

correct! but more importantly...your debate was prefaced on the (supposed) lie, that the campaign was national...and as such...was comparable to the recently announce "national" campaign...and alas is doomed to fail.

well i call bluff

if that is correct then you cannot compare the two as they then by default are not comparable as there is no data...in your tablet...prior to publicy supposing failure..with which to compute the comparison

CUZ YOU GOT NO DATA TO CONCLUSIVELY ASSUME SAME AMOUNT OF STORES

at least not without perceived margin of error.

so until walmart gives you data to support that debate you are done.

therefore anyone assuming the store numbers were low in 2006, on single game sales...can only assume that a larger campaign on a larger number of games...whilst not guaranteeing any results....does indeed have a statistically higher chance of selling more games.

There is no interpretation in this sane world that would counter logic as simplistic as that, not on the most basic of fundamental statistical analysis.

I do believe your debate is indeed ridiculous, and largely ignorant of mucho simple logic, furthermore find it simply a ploy to distract from the debate being against logic on the 2006 national walmart campaign.

More stores, more games, more chance of success. if correct, it's undeniable.

the funniest part was the demand for proof of a non national campaign, of less than say 250 stores...rebutted by a vague interpretation of a selected store campaign.

nope.........thats a 100% weak debate right there

until you produce a letter from walmart , with a contact for verification...who will state the campaign then...and now...will fill the same amount of stores with the same amount of games, one can only assume that is NOT what is about to take place

afterall we already know MORE games are in play

and it sure as hell sounds like a first time national campaign.

now.......your the only person debating the point

how about instead of passing the buck you debate it with facts, from associated sources?

ya

try that