Ah, I thought that was where the misconception was? I showed you clearly where you were contradicting yourself. Which would be empirical proof. So that must mean you said something ambiguous. Or maybe it is not as you said and something was implicit?
Nah. Halo CE = Halo 2 = Halo 3 because they're all the same.
So Halo CE = Halo 2 = Halo 3 = CGI
_en1gma_
Is anything else CGI, I only understand things by comparison. Which means if HaloCE=Halo2=Halo3 I would have nothing to compare CGI with. So please define CGI by showing what CGI is not.
Nah. Halo CE = Halo 2 = Halo 3 because they're all the same.
So Halo CE = Halo 2 = Halo 3 = CGI
_en1gma_
Is anything else CGI, I only understand things by comparison. Which means if HaloCE=Halo2=Halo3 I would have nothing to compare CGI with. So please define CGI by showing what CGI is not.
Nah everything else is CG.
The I is for the Halo franchise
So the difference between everything and Halo3, is an I? So what you are saying is that Halo3 is exactly I more then everything else?
Nah. Halo CE = Halo 2 = Halo 3 because they're all the same.
So Halo CE = Halo 2 = Halo 3 = CGI
_en1gma_
Is anything else CGI, I only understand things by comparison. Which means if HaloCE=Halo2=Halo3 I would have nothing to compare CGI with. So please define CGI by showing what CGI is not.
Is that your definition, or are you asking for clarification?
It is my definition, however I lack knowledge on the subject and I am assuming that you know a lot about CGI so enlighten me.
You lack knowledge on the subject and assume I know, but do not mind defining it as C-G-I? What if I do not know? What if I know the definition is not C-G-I?
Log in to comment