Pokémon Smash reveals "shocking" game announcement

[machomuu]

If you've been reading this thread at all you'd know it's not at all pointless.

I didn't assume that. Nor did I imply it. I merely implied that you should reread the thread and correct your logic accordingly.

You stated that if I had read it (which I did), I would have understood it as not pointless. Seeing as I did find it pointless, you then insinuated that I did not read it. Perhaps it is your logic, and quite frankly your communication skills, that need recalibrating, Mr. Parrot

. Have a nice day

Well clearly you don't understand, so apparently you didn't do it.

Of course, I doubt you will. See, it's not my communications skills that need work, it's that I don't feel like explaining something that('s) [should be] pretty obvious.

 

[DJPlace]

i was hoping for a pokemon 5th gen 3d game like the first one on the wii well this blows smoke out of the water...

 

[Nebz]

If you've been reading this thread at all you'd know it's not at all pointless.

I didn't assume that. Nor did I imply it. I merely implied that you should reread the thread and correct your logic accordingly.

You stated that if I had read it (which I did), I would have understood it as not pointless. Seeing as I did find it pointless, you then insinuated that I did not read it. Perhaps it is your logic, and quite frankly your communication skills, that need recalibrating, Mr. Parrot

. Have a nice day

The smaller text makes it a bit hard to notice. The text being quoted, bolded, and enlarged attracts more attention and of course informs those who are reading so that more posts about it not being shocking do not appear.
It's kinda easy to understood if you're reading through the thread. "Shocking announcement" was mistranslated and people are upset because it wasn't so... shocking. Machomuu's post just makes it a bit more clear for those who like to just skim through threads or just not read posts that don't interest them.

 

[machomuu]

If you've been reading this thread at all you'd know it's not at all pointless.

I didn't assume that. Nor did I imply it. I merely implied that you should reread the thread and correct your logic accordingly.

You stated that if I had read it (which I did), I would have understood it as not pointless. Seeing as I did find it pointless, you then insinuated that I did not read it. Perhaps it is your logic, and quite frankly your communication skills, that need recalibrating, Mr. Parrot

. Have a nice day

The smaller text makes it a bit hard to notice. The text being quoted, bolded, and enlarged attracts more attention and of course informs those who are reading so that more posts about it not being shocking do not appear.

Yeah, you hit the nail right on the head.

 

[thela_kid]

The smaller text makes it a bit hard to notice. The text being quoted, bolded, and enlarged attracts more attention and of course informs those who are reading so that more posts about it not being shocking do not appear.

Oh I guess that makes sense. I didn't understand because I read the thread and already read that post, so I felt that it was unnecessary. But then again there ARE people like Mr. Parrot that just skim through threads without reading them and assuming everybody else does the same because of their "I'm right and everyone else is wrong" complex

 

[machomuu]

The smaller text makes it a bit hard to notice. The text being quoted, bolded, and enlarged attracts more attention and of course informs those who are reading so that more posts about it not being shocking do not appear.

Oh I guess that makes sense. I didn't understand because I read the thread and already read that post, so I felt that it was unnecessary. But then again there ARE people like Mr. Parrot that just skim through threads without reading them and assuming everybody else does the same because of their "I'm right and everyone else is wrong" complex

Yeah, well you should know that I don't do that, just for future reference

.

 

[Uncle FEFL]

No, it was a pointless quote. Anybody that goes to a news thread and doesn't actually read the news is wasting their time --and they're kind of silly.

 

[machomuu]

No, it was a pointless quote. Anybody that goes to a news thread and doesn't actually read the news is wasting their time --and they're kind of silly.

The thing is the news nor the OP actually says it.

 

[Uncle FEFL]

No, it was a pointless quote. Anybody that goes to a news thread and doesn't actually read the news is wasting their time --and they're kind of silly.

The thing is the news nor the OP actually says it.

You're telling me that a reader can't read the third post in a topic?

And I don't know about you, but posts often have a lot of new information as well. In a NEWS topic, it would be wise to read everything. Unless it's over ten pages, in which case looking for posts with a larger amount of text may be more helpful.

EDIT: Not to mention this entire page is useless, and you posted only a few posts after jan77.

 

[machomuu]

No, it was a pointless quote. Anybody that goes to a news thread and doesn't actually read the news is wasting their time --and they're kind of silly.

The thing is the news nor the OP actually says it.

You're telling me that a reader can't read the third post in a topic?

And I don't know about you, but posts often have a lot of new information as well. In a NEWS topic, it would be wise to read everything. Unless it's over ten pages, in which case looking for posts with a larger amount of text may be more helpful.

Not that they can't, but that they won't. I've seen it happen many times. Too many, if you ask me.

Probably should've waited until there were more posts, though.

 

[Uncle FEFL]

No, it was a pointless quote. Anybody that goes to a news thread and doesn't actually read the news is wasting their time --and they're kind of silly.

The thing is the news nor the OP actually says it.

You're telling me that a reader can't read the third post in a topic?

And I don't know about you, but posts often have a lot of new information as well. In a NEWS topic, it would be wise to read everything. Unless it's over ten pages, in which case looking for posts with a larger amount of text may be more helpful.

Not that they can't, but that they won't. I've seen it happen many times. Too many, if you ask me.

Probably should've waited until there were more posts, though.

It might be best to let the silly people figure it out for themselves then, eh?

 

[Forstride]

Ladies, ladies. People will read posts if they want to. You shouldn't go around quoting a post just to bold/make it bigger, without even adding any input of your own. It makes you look like a post-count spammed, idiot, and it makes the other person's post you quoted useless.

 

[machomuu]

No, it was a pointless quote. Anybody that goes to a news thread and doesn't actually read the news is wasting their time --and they're kind of silly.
The thing is the news nor the OP actually says it.

You're telling me that a reader can't read the third post in a topic?

And I don't know about you, but posts often have a lot of new information as well. In a NEWS topic, it would be wise to read everything. Unless it's over ten pages, in which case looking for posts with a larger amount of text may be more helpful.

Not that they can't, but that they won't. I've seen it happen many times. Too many, if you ask me.

Probably should've waited until there were more posts, though.

It might be best to let the silly people figure it out for themselves then, eh?

Yeah, I guess you're right about that. It's bound to happen anyway.
QUOTE(TDWP FTW @ Sep 17 2011, 11:45 PM)

Ladies, ladies. People will read posts if they want to. You shouldn't go around quoting a post just to bold/make it bigger, without even adding any input of your own. It makes you look like a post-count spammed, idiot, and it makes the other person's post you quoted useless.

I think this is the first time I've done it outside of EoF, mainly because most posts that do it get deleted and I mostly never need to, and- who are you calling a lady!?

 

[Uncle FEFL]

Ladies, ladies. People will read posts if they want to. You shouldn't go around quoting a post just to bold/make it bigger, without even adding any input of your own. It makes you look like a post-count spammed, idiot, and it makes the other person's post you quoted useless.
You can't call me a lady when:
-All three of us are male
-You basically said what I said

Gosh, pal. :trollface:

QUOTE(machomuu @ Sep 17 2011, 08:46 PM) It's bound to happen anyway.

Yeah...

So, onto a similar topic, I hope a new Pokemon gets announced soon! Well, as long as I have the money for it. :/

 

[machomuu]

Well there is still the possibility of Iwata (or someone, I forgot who, I don't think it was Iwata) announcing the game. It was stated somewhere, though they later said it was unlikely.

 

[Deleted-236924]

I think that machomuu's quote was necessary, seeing that everyone was still complaining about this not being a shocking announcement even when it already had been said multiple times that it was a mistranslation.

 

[DarkShadow96]

Pointless Mewtwo because you can tutor those moves >___>...(dunno bout Psystrike tho)

 

[Deleted-236924]

Pointless Mewtwo because you can tutor those moves >___>...(dunno bout Psystrike tho)

Psystrike is learned at Lv. 100.

Plus, Mewtwo was not available in Gen V, as far as I know.

 

[Eckin]

wait for the 25th when they'll announce the fourth attack:

thundershock

*gasp*

 

[smile72]

I suspected it would be an announcement like this.