« Dish Network CEO: "I don’t see Blockbuster necessarily being a competitor to the Netflix..." | Main | Is Netflix Expanding to Latin America Next? »

Comments

Hank

MJ, perhaps your point is simply this:

"I am disappointed when I want a particular disc (blu-ray or otherwise) and Netflix doesn't have it. I wish they had everything I could possibly want."

If that's it, then I'd agree with you and support you in your request. However, it seems like you're going much further than that and neither you nor anyone else has provided any data or rationale that makes your point.

Hank

You even go so far as to posit some utilitarian moral foundation to such decisions.

Whereas your position is that Netflix (and other businesses) should pander to your particular tastes at the expense of the majority of their customers. I can understand that selfish philosophy, but i think you're going to have a hard time selling it.

Michel John

2. I said the last catalogue title I'm aware of them buying was last October. If they buy the discs you mentioned that would be six months of nothing. I just asked for the name of one movie bought within that time frame. If they haven't bought any in six months they're not still buying, they're buying again.

3. You reduce to absurdity one way, then another. I've already sketched out examples. (The Godfather vs The Conversation, "cinematic threads," etc.)

4. Your contradicting yourself (but I know you'll disagree). You say you like Northwest by Northwest better than Psycho, then suggest they're perfect substitutes.

5. Your intellectual dishonesty knows no bounds. Did I say I want something just because I can't have it? No, I didn't. By attributing to me ridiculous motives, I suppose you justify your trolling.

Hank

I did my own research and it does look like they haven't bought many BDs in the last few months, compared to what they have from last year. However I don't know when they bought the discs last year and at what prices. Of course I don't know if this is a change in Netflix strategy (not buying catalog BDs anymore) or whether the studios are just not making them available at reasonable prices in bulk right now. It may also be that Netflix users, for the most part, just don't seem to care.

Hank

2. I don't know of any that are guaranteed to be new BDs from the first four months of this year (some may be older BDs even though there are new BDs released this year).

3. Saying that I suggested "The Godfather" could be replaced by any of the new releases (as you did) is absurd. Saying that someone should not be upset because "Mortal Kombat" is not available when many great films are is not absurd.

I have not said there is never a case that you might legitimately crave one particular movie over another. It's just not the typical case and not one to get bent out of shape over. Especially when you're getting those titles by mail (if you're at dinner discussing Psycho and drop by the video store because you're all jazzed up about it then it might be a different matter).

4. You are arguing that I've said those are "perfect substitutes" and you go on to claim that I'm intellectually dishonest? All I've said is that for just about every movie you can name there is probably an equally good alternative that is available. What "equally good" means may differ by person.

5. My point throughout this main thread was that people were making a bigger issue out of this because they just want something they can't have. You jump in, seeming to want to argue with me and defend those I've questioned, and only now you want to point out (albeit extremely vaguely) that you are different than everyone else? I've given you opportunities time and time again to make your case, but instead you have (intentionally?) distorted my opinions and statements - which I have been more than welcome to clarify if you actually cared to have an honest discussion.

You still haven't provided me with the complete list of missing BDs that you absolutely need to watch now. This is, for now, a phantom issue. If Netflix never buys any more catalog discs it might be a bigger issue for some, but the number of people who care will decline over time as other content becomes available (new titles and/or streaming options).

Hank

I see you've listed the following missing titles you want to see on BD:

AI
Broadcast News
Kes
Sweet Smell of Success
Paths of Glory
The Red Shoes
Barry Lyndon

are those going at the top of your queue and you're really going to watch them in the next few weeks (if they were available)? Have you really seen all the other BD discs that you want to see?

I've got about 200 discs I want to see on BD in my queue, but they're preceded in the queue by 50 I want to see more. The 200 below those 250 that aren't available on BD are even less likely to get watched and it doesn't bother me a bit that they're not on BD. My numbers may be extreme, but the general pattern is not uncommon.

I really want to understand where you're coming from (and why Netflix should care about you), but you're making it very hard.

Michel John

Hank:

"Netflix has an obligation..."

This is a strawman. I've never said this.

"Netflix knows...which is why...what they're banking on...I agree."

I haven't argued for or against their reasoning or if this even is their reasoning. Are you privy to inside information or did you "puzzle this out" too?

"I am trying to rationalize your views..."

I think this is the problem.

"I want you to understand what you have."

I don't?

"a conscious and rational decision whether to be happy..."

LOL. But I suppose I agree more or less.

"This might be the critical issues that makes Netflix not work for them"

Have I been talking about whether to leave Netflix or not? No, I haven't.

"What is irrational is making list JUSTso you can get upset with them"

I thought you wanted me to know what I got so I can make good decisions. I bet a list of sorts would further that end.

"Are you anti-this general thing or just anti-a particular of that general."

Neither?

"Business...blah...blah...prediction...I'm right."

Rationalizing/explanations after the event are not predictions prior to the event.

"You seem to be going much further...to make your point."

And what point is that?

"Your position is...should pander..."

What? I never said this. And I doubt the zero-sum situation you've "puzzled out."

Michel John

Hank:

The reason I noticed those titles were missing in the first place was because I wanted to add them to my queue.

Michel John

Hank:

"What "equally good" means may differ by person."

LOL.

Hank

This is a strawman. I've never said this.

But you are a strawman, so that's all I have to work with. If you give me definitive statements or opinions then I can work with those, but when you are vague, dismissive and combative I have to merely assume what you mean.

If I said "The sky is blue" you are likely to come back with something like either:

a) You obviously think all things or blue. or,
b) LOL.

In the first case you are just being obstinate or dim. In the second, how can I but assume that you don't think the sky is blue?

I haven't argued for or against their reasoning or if this even is their reasoning. Are you privy to inside information or did you "puzzle this out" too?

Yes, I puzzled this out. This is hackingnetflix.com, not netflixinsider.com. The point, as I see it, is to use our collective knowledge to puzzle out what Netflix is doing, what they're thinking and where they're going to next. It is somewhat speculation, but it can be reasoned speculation.

"I am trying to rationalize your views..." I think this is the problem.

You mean the trying part? As I said, give me your definitive concrete opinions and I won't need to speculate.

"I want you to understand what you have." I don't?

It sure doesn't look that way. You seem to want to just hold on to some righteous indignation and not look at the big picture. There I am again putting words in your mouth, when you won't say what you really mean.

Have I been talking about whether to leave Netflix or not? No, I haven't.

Part of the difficulty you're having in this discussion is that you jump willy-nilly between taking about yourself exclusively and a more broad selection of their customers. I'm willing to focus on you exclusively if you like, but make up your mind.

I thought you wanted me to know what I got so I can make good decisions. I bet a list of sorts would further that end.

Yes, it would. Making a one-sided list (only the missing titles) would not further that end. Unless your "end" is just finding a reason to get riled up at Netflix.

"Are you anti-this general thing or just anti-a particular of that general." Neither?

Then why criticize my comment? You make such vague statements dismissing my opinions, yet you are shocked when I try to guess at what you mean. Do you mean that Netflix main focus should not be making a profit? That more people are not satisfied when Netflix buys new releases rather than more catalog titles? That Netflix should promote good cinema, rather than trying to give customers what they ignorantly want?

You just like to vaguely criticize and then get offended that I would presume to try to understand why.

Rationalizing/explanations after the event are not predictions prior to the event.

If you don't understand the current decisions you will not be able to make predictions about the future. Whether I have been correct in understanding the business reasons behind what they have done, I have almost always been correct in understanding what the results would be (e.g. that Netflix is not going to collapse from the pressure of the huge *snicker* number of influential *double snicker* members who were upset over losing Netflix community features and that they were better off integrating with existing social networks).

And what point is that?

Exactly, once again you want me to chase my tail and guess. For example, ...

What? I never said this. And I doubt the zero-sum situation you've "puzzled out."

You mock when I say that Netflix is buying more of a certain type of disc (the Bieber's vs. the Hitchcock's) because that's what more customers want. What should I assume when you do this, other than that you believe the opposite?

another example:

"What "equally good" means may differ by person." LOL.

So you don't think that statement is true? You don't think it applies? You believe it's just so darn obvious that I have to say it?

If you're going to be a reticent ass, don't be offended when I question your obnoxious statements. Your style of discussion certainly is a lot easier on the brain (and they typing fingers), but it isn't very useful towards mutual understanding.

Hank

The reason I noticed those titles were missing in the first place was because I wanted to add them to my queue.

Yes, and I added "Dolemite" to my queue because I want to see it. It's at #269 and it's unlikely I'll ever get around to it, but it's there. However, I'm not upset in the least that there isn't a BD version (although if there were I'd move it up to #189 and likely still never watch it).

Once again, I'm just trying to gauge how real a problem this is for customers. As I said, understanding what Netflix is doing (and how it really affects customers) is key to predicting whether this is a real issue and what effect it will have on the future. So far it sure looks like this is just an empty complaint (like losing the "releasing this week" page) and that it will have a negligent effect on membership (or overall membership satisfaction).


In fact why not put those titles on your queue as DVDs? Then you would know if and when they are acquired by Netflix. It might also give them a signal that BD enabled customers are still interested in those movies.

Some people are under the delusion that Netflix doesn't want disc based customers anymore. That is absolutely not the case (once again note this is hackingnetflix, not netflixinsider). Their disc business is profitable and they love shipping discs to people who crave them and making a tidy profit from them each month. They might prefer that customer use streaming, but they are not going to just throw away a profitable customer because they won't convert completely.

So if their buying patterns have changed it's a logical assumption that the market dynamics have changed or they've reworked the math and it doesn't make sense. If there were 50,000 fans who are itching to have The Color Purple on BD and Netflix could buy a decent number of those discs for $10 each then I see no reason why they wouldn't do that.

So I'll speculate that these discs are much more expensive than their new releases and/or that the demand just isn't there. It may also be that they've just noticed the only people "chomping at the bit" for these discs are those who need to watch everything and are likely Netflix' worst customers (in terms of profitability) - in that case, yes they do want you to go to BB or anywhere else.

I'm sure you'll dismiss everything I say out of hand while not attempting to provide any insight of your own. Fine.

Michel John

You obviously think all things are blue.

You not only make up my views, you're making up my responses as well. You're arguing with yourself.

The point, as I see it, is to use our collective knowledge to puzzle out what Netflix is doing, what they're thinking and where they're going to next.

This is fine, but you're imposing your views by disrupting the honest attempts by consumers to communicate. Why not add to this: to have better information to make better decisions? (And I mean this generally, not just as relates to staying with or leaving Netflix.)

It is somewhat speculation, but it can be reasoned speculation.

"Somewhat?" How is it not?

As I said, give me your definitive concrete opinions and I won't need to speculate.

So if I don't say something you're just going to make something up as if I did? Then expect me to tell you why the words and opinions you falsely attributed to me aren't true? This is absurd and no way for a rational conversation to proceed.

Making a one-sided list (only the missing titles) would not further that end.

Are you kidding? It should include ones that aren't missing? Facts are not facts? I guess "equal" really does means whatever you want it to mean? 2+2=5.

Then why criticize my comment?

Because you were suggesting that because, as you reasoned it, Netflix's decisions were rational, from a business perspective, consumers were irrational to be unhappy with them.

It's at 269

I suppose I'm more "existential" in my choices. It could take several (or many) years to watch 269 movies. I only add movies to my queue I definitely want to watch in the near future. I feel more "free" that way.

Michel John

That should have read, "consumers are irrational to be unhappy with them, from a consumer perspective.

Hank

You not only make up my views, you're making up my responses as well. You're arguing with yourself.

When there is only one honest intelligent person at the table, it's actually more productive that way.

This is fine, but you're imposing your views by disrupting the honest attempts by consumers to communicate.

There are two ways to go with this. You could look at it the Netflix way (the standard corporate method), where they almost never respond to their customers directly and if they do it's general platitudes. If you read many of the complaints from the Netflix bashers they hate this and crave at every opportunity for Netflix to respond to them. Or you could actively engage them, be honest and tell them like it is, as I have done.

I suggest if you want the former to go to the Netflix blog. If you want to just spew mindless complaints then go to the blog where your input will be given the appropriate value (i.e. about zero).

If you don't want honest feedback and an explanation of why Netflix makes decisions that you may not agree with, then don't come here. (Or just come here and spew and never look back at the thread. Great for venting, not for elucidation.)

"Somewhat?" How is it not?

In that it is based on a decent amount of knowledge of Netflix, its business and business in general. My observations are not random, although it must seem that way to you.

So if I don't say something you're just going to make something up as if I did?

Make something up? Of course, not. I will look at everything you've said and make a reasonable guess at what you mean.

Then expect me to tell you why the words and opinions you falsely attributed to me aren't true?

Then I expect you to say. "No, what I actually meant by 'LOL' was ..." and give a reasonable response that I hadn't considered. So far, you've failed to do that and just said "I never said that." No further explanation of what you actually meant, however. And we keep guessing at you opinions.

This is absurd and no way for a rational conversation to proceed.

Where as the "rational" way you suggest amounts to you giving me gutteral responses and leaving me to guess at your reasoning. Much better.

Would you really like to go back and look at the record of this conversation. Wherever I've guessed at what you were saying it is in absence of any detail you've provided, whereas when you've "guessed" at my meaning they've been contrary to everything I've said. E.g. when you say that I think that all movies are equivalent.

Are you kidding? It should include ones that aren't missing? Facts are not facts? I guess "equal" really does means whatever you want it to mean? 2+2=5.

Yes. I know it's crazy, but maybe you should consider both sides of an argument rather than just providing a one-sided list of facts to make your conclusions.

Why Netflix Sux: "No video game rentals, no porn, wait for new releases."

QED, right? Facts are indeed facts, but unless you look at all the facts you can't make any decent conclusion. I have never disputed the fact that Netflix is missing those particular discs. I will dispute that it is a tragedy worth bemoaning ad infinitem when you look at the total picture.

Because you were suggesting that because, as you reasoned it, Netflix's decisions were rational, from a business perspective, consumers were irrational to be unhappy with them.

Was it really so hard to type in all those words rather than LOL? How about going a little further and explaining your position rather than just saying mine is not valid. You seem to be cautious about saying that Netflix business decision is not rational, but you seem to be saying that consumers are completely rational, or is it? Jeez, I wouldn't want to put words in your mouth. Putting your jumbled thoughts into words can help clarify the mind, I suggest you try this some day. Although it is much easier just to laugh and disagree without having to think out a good reason or response.

So is it your point that no consumer complaint is irrational? That we should all just nod and clap when someone says they want every new release on the same day or that they shouldn't have to pay for BD, that they want a discount for not using IW because they only have a Linux computer, etc.?

Or is it that only this particular consumer complaint (one that you seem to share) is special? But you refrain from pointing out why that might be, as usual.

Michel John

It's actually more productive that way

To set up strawmen and knock them down?

There are two ways to go with this.

This is a false choice.

If you want to just spew mindless complaints...

You claim to be honest, but you keep suggesting I want ridiculous things. (You don't seem to get that right now I'm complaining about your fallacious reasoning and misrepresentations.)

If you don't want honest feedback and an explanation of why Netflix makes decisions that you may not agree with...

Again, you caricature me by suggesting I don't want "honest" feedback and explanations.

then don't come here...Or just come here and spew and never look back at the thread...go to the Netflix blog...where your input will be given the appropriate value (i.e. about zero).

So you engage "honestly" and everyone else complains "mindlesssly."

My observations are not random, although it must seem that way to you.

I didn't say they were random. Do you have privileged knowledge? No? Then how is "somewhat" more than mere mortal speculation?

...I expect you to say. "No, what I actually meant by 'LOL' was ..." and give a reasonable response that I hadn't considered.

As far as "LOL" I didn't say, "I didn't say that." Jesus.

...you've... just said "I never said that." No further explanation of what you actually meant, however. And we keep guessing at you opinions.

How could I have meant something about which I didn't say.

Where as the "rational" way you suggest amounts to you giving me gutteral responses and leaving me to guess at your reasoning.

1. I say something.
2. You don't understand.
3. You could just ask me about it.

Wherever I've guessed at what you were saying it is in absence of any detail you've provided...

The difference is between drawing a conclusion based on what was said and inventing one based on what wansn't.

...whereas when you've "guessed" at my meaning they've been contrary to everything I've said. E.g. when you say that I think that all movies are equivalent.

No you just say they both are and are not. Your whole argument is they're perfect substitutes. (I know you deny this.) And if not all, enough (not Mortal Kombat). You hedge by saying "equally good" is relative "by person."

Yes. I know it's crazy, but maybe you should consider both sides of an argument rather than just providing a one-sided list of facts to make your conclusions.

What conclusion? This is not "guessing" what I mean, this is suggesting I made a conclusion and attacking me for it without telling me what conclusion I'm supposed to have made.

Why Netflix Sux: "No video game rentals, no porn, wait for new releases."

I didn't say this. I didn't say, "Netflix Sux," but this would be an opinion based on true facts. (Neflix could "Sux" for those reasons and not "Sux" for others. The not "Sux" and "Sux" don't magically negate each other.)

Facts are indeed facts, but unless you look at all the facts you can't make any decent conclusion. I have never disputed the fact that Netflix is missing those particular discs.

This suggests I'm not looking at certain facts but you're not saying what they are.

I will dispute that it is a tragedy worth bemoaning ad infinitem when you look at the total picture.

Did I say something about a tragedy? That it was worth bemoaning ad infinitum?

So is it your point that no consumer complaint is irrational?

Of course not. You seem to have an agenda against so-called Netflix bashers. You then attack me with your generalized complaints against them. This is guilt by association, a fallacious argument.

Or is it that only this particular consumer complaint (one that you seem to share) is special? But you refrain from pointing out why that might be, as usual.

A list of missing titles has utility value despite your assertions that it is unjust or biased without "all" the facts. You're either pretending people don't have sufficient prior (or future) context so that a simple list (without full context) will rock their worldview (so the person making the list has a obligation to protect them) or worse you're pretending you're one of those people (or I am?).

Hank

LOL.

Absolutely nothing you've said in that last post makes me think you care to have anything other than a mindless semantic circle jerk. There are really only two conclusions I can make: you are intentionally misunderstanding and manipulating my words or you are a moron.

If you just want to make a simple list with no conclusions continue to do so in the other thread (where I did not post any critical comments). This thread was about whether the surcharge was fair, which means you have to look at both sides (what's missing and what's there).

Have fun.

Michel John

1. You downplayed/reduced to absurdity what was missing. Then attacked ad hominen any counterarguments.

2. You pretend someone (namely: me) is not "looking at" what is there. (Supposedly because I don't "balance" both sides "fairly." Yet you repeatedly only "look at" the business side.)

(I'm more than happy to talk about the movies they have. You forget my original post was in response to you not the thread topic (namely: you questioning the significance of the missing titles).

Hank

Your response to me was in the context of my making the case for why those missing titles should be balanced by considering the titles that they do have. But hey, you haven't been paying much attention to what I've written and are just making things up as you go along, so I guess it's understandable.

Believe what you want. Let's agree that every movie is unique and special and that when someone wants to watch a particular film that no other film could possibly be good enough. The idea of a service asking users to put a set of movies into a list and then maybe sending the second or third movie from that list is preposterous - it would never be successful.

Hank

Some of the catalog BDs coming to Netflix in the next month:

American Graffiti
Once Upon a Time in the West
Beverly Hills Cop
Death at a Funeral
The Man Who Would be King

Michel John

Either:

1. You presumed the fiction that by talking about those missing titles one is required at that very moment to make a decision or definitive statement regarding the fate of their Netflix account.

Or:

2. That, despite being factual, talking about those missing titles is inherently biased and by doing so you may upset context-free individuals who must be protected.

(And I never said: "no other film could possibly be good enough," or anything remotely close to "the idea of a service...is preposteros...would never be successful.)

As far American Graffiti etc. where are you getting your info? (Not because I don't believe you, but I really want to know.)

Hank

LOL

Michel John

RE: American Graffiti etc. you looked them up individually yourself?

Good work.

Michel John

You keep mocking my use of "LOL," but I used that twice:

FIrst: Because you said one "can make a conscious and rational decision whether to be happy," which no doubt has some truth to it, but sounds funny (though I agreed with the general point you were making at the time).

Second: Because you said "'what equally good' means may differ by person," which begs the question: why not say "about as good" is equal does not mean equal. Of course you may mean equal is equal but 'good' is relative among 'equal goods' between people, but this would mean they're still 'perfect substitutes' for each person just not between people. Hence, "LOL."

Hank

You keep mocking my use of "LOL," but I used that twice:

LOL

FIrst: Because you said one "can make a conscious and rational decision whether to be happy," which no doubt has some truth to it, but sounds funny (though I agreed with the general point you were making at the time).

Really?

Second: Because you said "'what equally good' means may differ by person," which begs the question: why not say "about as good" is equal does not mean equal. Of course you may mean equal is equal but 'good' is relative among 'equal goods' between people, but this would mean they're still 'perfect substitutes' for each person just not between people. Hence, "LOL."

I like pie.

Michel John

I like pie.

Hank is a _____.

a) GD troll
b) useful idiot
c) astroturfing SOB

Hank

Normal Conversation

Bob: Hank, I'm going to the video store - what should I get?
Hank: How about Psycho or something equally good.
Bob: Will do.
(later)
Bob: They didn't have Psycho so I got North by Northwest.
Hank: Well I wanted to watch Psycho, but I haven't seen NxNW in a while and never on blu-ray.

Bizarro World Conversation

MJ: Hank, I'm going to the video store what should I get?
Hank: How about Psycho or something equally good.
MJ: So you think all movies are the same? Do you even like movies?
Hank: No, I mean just get something like Psycho or maybe even better if they have it, something we'd equally enjoy.
MJ: So you want me to just settle for the latest crappy new release?
Hank: Of course not. Get something similar, you know, like North by Northwest or The Manchurian Candidate.
MJ: You mean there's a universal standard among movies? Do you not realize that what I may like may be different than what you would like?
Hank: It's a huge store, surely they've got something like Psycho there on blu-ray.
(later)
MJ: They didn't have Psycho.
Hank: So what did you get?
MJ: Nothing. They had lots of movies that you and I would like better and in blu-ray too, but they weren't perfect substitutes like you asked for.
Hank: (sigh)

Michel John

Normal Coversation/Bizarro World Conversation

We're not a) friends b) in person, c) about to rent a movie d) having a casual conversation.

How about Psycho or something equally good

In this specific case "equally" is understood as "approximately." If you meant approximately you should have said approximately, not "equally." By obfuscating the difference you get to "have it both ways."

Hank

In this specific case "equally" is understood as "approximately." If you meant approximately you should have said approximately, not "equally." By obfuscating the difference you get to "have it both ways."

LOL. As I said, you don't want to have a conversation, you want to make this a battle and cherry pick my comments so you can interpret them in the narrowest possible way just so you can find cause to disagree with them.

I'm guessing that most people understand what it means when someone says a movie is "equally good or better." Anyone worth having a conversation with, that is.

Michel John

I'm guessing that most people understand what it means when someone says a movie is "equally good or better."

Argumentum ad populum (appeal to the people).

Hank

Absolutely. All those who can't think of a movie equally good or better than Psycho please raise your hands.

Michel John

Absolutely. All those who can't think of a movie equally good or better than Psycho please raise your hands.

Appeals to the people are fallacious (they don't prove anything), but now you're "reducing to absurdity" by suggesting I personally only like one movie.

Michel John

The argument was: you saying it didn't matter that the titles were missing because: 1) There's plenty to watch. 2) Titles are interchangeable.

You concluded based on this: 1) It's irrational to talk about. 2) It's biased to list.

Michel John

We (by your reasoning) have (are left with) only a few options 1) Cancel Blu-ray support. 2) Cancel membership. 3) Interpret Netflix's actions to predict their future ones: a) To not be irrational. b)To speculate on stocks?

Hank

Appeals to the people are fallacious (they don't prove anything)

The only thing it proves is that my meaning was clear to any reasonable person. Any person who didn't want to torture a simple and common expression, that is.

but now you're "reducing to absurdity" by suggesting I personally only like one movie.

Not at all. I'm suggesting you don't understand English. Or logic, for that matter.

The argument was: you saying it didn't matter that the titles were missing because: 1) There's plenty to watch. 2) Titles are interchangeable.

That was not the argument I was making, but that didn't stop you from arguing the counterpoint anyway.

So congratulations, you've won! Since I agree (and always have) that the missing titles do matter and that movies are not interchangeable.

Hank

You concluded based on this: 1) It's irrational to talk about. 2) It's biased to list.

Those were my conclusions? I guess once again you win, since I have no problem with talking about the issue and I fully encourage an even more complete list of missing BDs (preferably with the dates of release). The list you guys have made is patheticly short, IMO. Very half-assed effort, actually.

Whose posts have you been reading? Not mine, apparently.

Michel John

b1) Troll b2) Astroturf
a) To influence the public perception. a) To disrupt the flow of information.

Michel John

I fully encourage an even more complete list of missing BDs.

You said a list of missing BDs "is just finding a reason to get riled up at Netflix."

Michel John

The list you guys have made is patheticly short, IMO. Very half-assed effort, actually.

I think a discussion forum or personal webpage would be better for it than here.

Hank

You said a list of missing BDs "is just finding a reason to get riled up at Netflix."

Reading comprehension is obviously not your strong suit. I think you probably understand most of the individual words, but when they're put together you seem to get easily confused. When multiple sentences are put together into paragraph form to make a complete thought you seem to become completely lost and just focus on the few words that make sense to you.

I think a discussion forum or personal webpage would be better for it than here.

and if this were a truly serious issue that webpage would already exist.

Michel John

The only thing it proves is that my meaning was clear to any reasonable person. Any person who didn't want to torture a simple and common expression, that is.

You pass over my objections. You used "equally good" two ways. 1. Generally. 2. Specifically.

As far as generally: you tried to suggest preferences between two "equally good" movies don't matter in any case.

As far as specifically: you had someone say to someone else "how about Psycho or something equally good. "'About' equally good." or "I prefer Psycho first, but use your best judgement." or "I can't go myself and therefore have too limited of information to decide not to get something as I might do if I were alone, plus I assume you want to watch a movie as well and I'm not inconsiderate."

As far as appealing to the people/common sense: these are fallacies. If you want to prove something you have to make an argument. You haven't proved your meaning was clear: I'm the only one talking to you and I disagreed. It's only reasonable in the very specific scenario you described, but not relevant to our prior argument.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Sponsors

Third-Party Netflix Sites