Forza 4 vs GT5 physics (read the first post before contributing)

[thelvynau]

One wheel is on the track edge PD defines hence why it is valid and not cheating. They never pulled 2011 GT Academy EU due to people doing this as they were fine with the regulations they set out.

I think it is more about people failing to understand why people can go faster going on grass than not. It simply is due to being the faster racing line for Round 1. If you doubt my experience, you can see I’m not the slowest on that round. (http://www.mygranturismo.net/rankings.php?sub=overallTop5000_1&start=0)

I have watched the full replays of the fastest laps for round 1. I think the only one of my laps that won’t be classed as clean under OLR is 1-3. I quite specifically said the image you showed would be classed clean under OLR.

Regarding FIA, for F1 I hear, you are only classed off the track if 4 wheels are off the track boundary, so 3 wheels off the track is valid which is similar to the way PD implemented. I can understand now why PD does it like the way they do it now. Track boundaries vary from track to track in the game like F1 tracks in real world have certain specifics as well what the boundary is.

GTA does not have grass / mud wear and variable track conditions so conditions are equal at all times. It is less of an issue in the game for that reason as you always reset back to default conditions after finishing. I can understand why you will get kicked off circuit at a track and that is due to not following code of conduct for the track. Regarding black flagging, I don’t think that will be due to gaining an advantage (If number of wheels on track abides by regulations) but for safety reasons if you constantly do it lap after lap after being warned. It is unlikely anyone will be doing that though in real life and same in virtual world if there was wear. PD are regulators of GTA, they are not concerned with grass being used as really it is not real world and it does not cost anything to repair as it is in virtual world as long as one wheel is on track edge, they are fine with it.

I’m only really talking about the Leaf example, acceleration is slower when on grass.

His back wheel isnt on the track I dont care what anyone says its cheating.

And given most of what you have said has been proven wrong I am having trouble taking your findings seriously.

 

[Samus]

One wheel is on the track edge PD defines hence why it is valid and not cheating. They never pulled 2011 GT Academy EU due to people doing this as they were fine with the regulations they set out.

No offence but you must be blind or have selective vision if you think that car is inside the white lines. Maybe this is clearer, if you're struggling:

As for your "grass is the fastest line" theory, why don't real racing drivers go around tracks on the grass? Because it loses them traction and they go slower.

 

[Scaff]

Regarding FIA, for F1 I hear, you are only classed off the track if 4 wheels are off the track boundary, so 3 wheels off the track is valid which is similar to the way PD implemented. I can understand now why PD does it like the way they do it now. Track boundaries vary from track to track in the game like F1 tracks in real world have certain specifics as well what the boundary is.

OK I'm not sure why you now seem to be just ignoring the FIA regulations I clearly quoted and linked to, the only reason I can think is that you wish to further your own agenda.

3 wheels off track is not acceptable under FIA regulations, hell keep cutting a corner taking just one tyre off in an FIA event and you will end up with a penalty.

As for F1 (and FIA) tracks having differing track boundaries, no they do not, they have a fixed white line defining the track edge, cross it and you can be given a penalty.

Please stop pretending that quite clearly illustrated facts don't exist just because you don't want them to.

I’m only really talking about the Leaf example, acceleration is slower when on grass.

And as the thread I linked to shows, plenty of people disagree with you.

 

[sik180sx]

But this is gran turismo Not the FIA or F1.
How did this thread go from physics to corner cutting?

 

[Spagetti69]

But this is gran turismo Not the FIA or F1.
How did this thread go from physics to corner cutting?

It was the off track physics I believe.

 

[Saidur_Ali]

His back wheel isnt on the track I dont care what anyone says its cheating.

And given most of what you have said has been proven wrong I am having trouble taking your findings seriously.

It is not classed as cheating by the regulators which is the main thing.

Proven wrong where?

No offence but you must be blind or have selective vision if you think that car is inside the white lines. Maybe this is clearer, if you're struggling:

As for your "grass is the fastest line" theory, why don't real racing drivers go around tracks on the grass? Because it loses them traction and they go slower.

It is nothing to do with being blind or selective vision, it is more to do with your trouble reading what I said. I did not say anything about the car being inside the white line, just that one wheel is on the track edge that PD defines. It was the same last year, nothing has changed, PD have not changed their stance yet on this.

If you read my previous posts, on this and the page before, you will understand I have already talked about your final point.

OK I'm not sure why you now seem to be just ignoring the FIA regulations I clearly quoted and linked to, the only reason I can think is that you wish to further your own agenda.

3 wheels off track is not acceptable under FIA regulations, hell keep cutting a corner taking just one tyre off in an FIA event and you will end up with a penalty.

As for F1 (and FIA) tracks having differing track boundaries, no they do not, they have a fixed white line defining the track edge, cross it and you can be given a penalty.

Please stop pretending that quite clearly illustrated facts don't exist just because you don't want them to.





And as the thread I linked to shows, plenty of people disagree with you.

Your interpretation of the regulations seems rather flawed, I recommend you read up on it or watch videos of valid laps. I don’t see how it is furthering my own agenda; I’m just informing you what the rules allow briefly.

Can you tell me why there is not a huge list of disqualifications last year in F1 going by your interpretation that even one tyre off in an FIA event repeatedly will end up with a penalty but on a few qualifying laps there has been 3 wheels off, and most often in qualifying two is off and also in the race? Hard to explain unless you want to tell the FIA to disqualify championships due to your interpretation being factual or you going to back track on this now.

You can illustrate all you want of your interpretation but if it was factual, there are huge consequences for all drivers and teams involved in FIA events as you can understand and mentioned above. I guess you must not watch much FIA motorsport events if you have yet to see drivers use curbs without being penalised.

Melbourne 2010 or 2011, turn four, can you explain why drivers could go wide there if there are no differing track boundaries? There are certain specifics on some tracks on where drivers can cut into the pit lane as well depending on category, like F1 usually can cut later in pit lane on some tracks from what I remember.

Finally, I don’t mind people disagree with what is happening are ones just speculating why people are going faster, as long as I know what is helping me go faster than them. If you can go faster by driving on grass longer then all means use it but I will selectively use it for reasons I have mentioned in recent posts. OP in that thread is confusing gain from curb and racing line as better acceleration on grass on Round 1 of GTA2012.

 

[Scaff]

Your interpretation of the regulations seems rather flawed, I recommend you read up on it or watch videos of valid laps. I don’t see how it is furthering my own agenda; I’m just informing you what the rules allow briefly.

My view on the regulations is not interpretation at all, its the regulations quoted directly.

The key word I used consistently is that if a driver breaks these regulations they can suffer a penalty. The FIA stewards will normally only issue a penalty if the rule is broken constantly (driver cuts every corner, cuts corner consistently or gains an advantage from it.

You point was that the off-track antics in the GTA would the fine under FIA regulations, the regulations themselves clearly state that is not the case, and as a clear advantage is gained over the competition from doing so it would incur a penalty in an FIA event.

Only last year the FIA issued a rules clarification on the very subject and while the regulations are 'open' to interpritaion they are written in a why that should you regularly put part of a car over the while line (track boundary) you can be penalised and should you put the whole car over the white line you will be penalised.

http://www.iracing.com/inracingnews...-one-news/f1-clamps-down-on-driving-standards

Any way you want to spin it, this:

Which is allowable in the GTA is not allowable in FIA regulated events, and do this to gain an advantage.....

.....regularly enough and you would almost certainly face a penalty. As such I have nothing to 'back-track' on at all.

As for it not being an issue worth looking at in F1:
http://www.f1minute.com/news/sebastian-vettel-escapes-penalty-corner-cutting-qualifying
http://www.autoweek.com/article/20111207/F1/111209911
http://www.totalf1.com/details/view...Recent+Formula+1+News)&utm_content=FeedBurner
http://doctorvee.co.uk/2008/09/12/fia-clarifies-corner-cutting-rule-but-is-there-still-a-loophole/
http://www.autosport.com/subs/login...m/news/report.php/id/70526&type=news&id=70526
http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2012/03/08/2012-rules-glance/


Now can we get this back on topic, which strangely enough is physics.

 

[Samus]

It is nothing to do with being blind or selective vision, it is more to do with your trouble reading what I said. I did not say anything about the car being inside the white line, just that one wheel is on the track edge that PD defines. It was the same last year, nothing has changed, PD have not changed their stance yet on this.

How do you know what PD defines as the edge of track? They may have in their mind what they want it to be but they might not get the programming quite right. When people were completely cutting across the grass in the last GTA but still getting a legal laptime does that mean they were within the track edge that PD defined? No of course they weren't, and that is why the track was changed, because they got their programming wrong.

The only reason they've done nothing about cutting on the GTA this year so far is because they don't matter. If the same thing happens on 8-5 I'm certain they'll do something though.

 

[Tornado]

From my experience it slows you down slightly.


Have you tried it? It slows you down from experience. Only reason to go on it is ideal racing line to shorten distance to finishing line and minimise lateral load on tyres and take advantage of any elevation differences in drivers favour. In 1-1 for example you don't see people going on the grass all the way round or at end because the grass slows you down. You only see people going on grass on select parts mainly for reasons stated above.

Your experience is wrong. I was struggling very much to understand how people in my friends list were going so much faster than I was in the first Nissan Leaf rounds of the overall contest. Nothing I did, no matter how smooth I was with my inputs, no matter how closely I hugged the inside lines, was coming close to them.





Then I tried once to cut the turn on the Monza test, just for giggles. About 50:50 for on trackff track. First time I instantly shot up to within thousanths of a second of the top times in my friends list. If it slowed you down like you are claiming, than slightly shorter distance or not that wouldn't happen.

 

[DaveS1138]

And as the thread I linked to shows, plenty of people disagree with you.

Funny that you should post this in a thread where 82% of the people think GT5 has the better physics.

a large number of people disagreeing with you in not an argument for being correct or wrong.

 

[Spagetti69]

I'm amazed it's only 82% on a GT website.

 

[Tornado]

Funny that you should post this in a thread where 82% of the people think GT5 has the better physics.

a large number of people disagreeing with you in not an argument for being correct or wrong.

Playing Devil's Advocate (incorrectly, since Scaff only worded it that way because saidur pretty obviously ignored it when it was brought up the first time and he was trying to get saidur to acknowledge what those people were saying rather than anything resembling the "all these people say you are wrong, so you are wrong" viewpoint that would justify your post) to defend a point of view that is blatantly wrong?





Interesting.

 

[Scaff]

Funny that you should post this in a thread where 82% of the people think GT5 has the better physics.

a large number of people disagreeing with you in not an argument for being correct or wrong.

It does however quite clearly show that people do find the issue to exist and as such can't be dismissed.

Also ask yourself how many of those 82% have played both FM4 and GT5, because I would bet close to 100% of those raising the issue about grass in GTA have played it.

 

[DaveS1138]

It does however quite clearly show that people do find the issue to exist and as such can't be dismissed.

Also ask yourself how many of those 82% have played both FM4 and GT5, because I would bet close to 100% of those raising the issue about grass in GTA have played it.

Then you would have to also admit that 82% of people saying GT5's physics are better also shows an issue with Forza's physics exists and can't be dismissed.

I'm just saying being in a minority position does not make you automatically wrong. There are plenty of other ways to dismantle the argument just as you have been showing in this thread......."everybody disagrees with you" is a week argument.

 

[Tornado]

Then you would have to also admit that 82% of people saying GT5's physics are better also shows an issue with Forza's physics exists and can't be dismissed.

I see that you seemed to have ignored the entire second half of his post, where he explained why that comparison isn't valid in the way you are presenting it.

I'm just saying being in a minority position does not make you automatically wrong. There are plenty of other ways to dismantle the argument just as you have been showing in this thread......."everybody disagrees with you" is a week argument.

This would all be absolutely 100% true... if that was what Scaff was arguing in the first place.


Which, again, it wasn't.

 

[Scaff]

Then you would have to also admit that 82% of people saying GT5's physics are better also shows an issue with Forza's physics exists and can't be dismissed.

No it doesn't. It means that 82% of the people who replied to the poll believe that GT5 has superior physics, that's the question that was asked. Anything more and you are making a link that doesn't always exist. Prove first that 100% of the 82% have spent a reasonable amount of time with both and maybe we will have something to discuss. As I have said a good number of those 82% will not have played FM4 at all, the same is not true of those raising the GTA issue.

Strange thing is that when asked to explain why and provide any form of test to illustrate it the 82% get very quiet.

Oh and for the record if you read the thread I have never claimed that FM4's physics don't have issues, rather I have pointed them out on a number of occasions.

Care to do the same for GT5?

I'm just saying being in a minority position does not make you automatically wrong. There are plenty of other ways to dismantle the argument just as you have been showing in this thread......."everybody disagrees with you" is a week argument.

Please let me know when I said anything different? I simply provided a counter to a claim that this issue doesn't exist, when a number of participants in the GTA have encountered it.

 

[DaveS1138]

No it doesn't. It means that 82% of the people who replied to the poll believe that GT5 has superior physics, that's the question that was asked. Anything more and you are making a link that doesn't always exist. Prove first that 100% of the 82% have spent a reasonable amount of time with both and maybe we will have something to discuss. As I have said a good number of those 82% will not have played FM4 at all, the same is not true of those raising the GTA issue.

Strange thing is that when asked to explain why and provide any form of test to illustrate it the 82% get very quiet.

Oh and for the record if you read the thread I have never claimed that FM4's physics don't have issues, rather I have pointed them out on a number of occasions.

Care to do the same for GT5?



Please let me know when I said anything different? I simply provided a counter to a claim that this issue doesn't exist, when a number of participants in the GTA have encountered it.

However the counter you offered was simply this.

And as the thread I linked to shows, plenty of people disagree with you.

You offered no proof.
You offered no counter argument.
You didn't show his point was wrong.

You simply said that the majority of people disagree with him therefore he is wrong.

Then you want to have your cake and eat it too by ignoring the fact that the vast majority of people in this thread say that GT5 has better physics than Forza 4.

Now all of a sudden it's not a case of the majority view......now its analysis of who has played what game and who voted for what reason and what proof did they offer.

The complete oposite of what you did when countering an argument by simply claiming that it went against the majority view.


You would never accept that argument if it was used against you in this thread and you would be correct not to.

So dont expect him to accept that argument when you use it against him from another thread.

Majority opinion may well be the correct one. But it about as far from a guarantee as you can possibly get.


Sorry. I appologies for sidetracking the debate. I just found it interesting that you of all people would try to use that argument in this of all threads.

 

[miDnIghtEr20C]

However the counter you offered was simply this.



You offered no proof.
You offered no counter argument.
You didn't show his point was wrong.

You simply said that the majority of people disagree with him therefore he is wrong.

Then you want to have your cake and eat it too by ignoring the fact that the vast majority of people in this thread say that GT5 has better physics than Forza 4.

Now all of a sudden it's not a case of the majority view......now its analysis of who has played what game and who voted for what reason and what proof did they offer.

The complete oposite of what you did when countering an argument by simply claiming that it went against the majority view.


You would never accept that argument if it was used against you in this thread and you would be correct not to.

So dont expect him to accept that argument when you use it against him from another thread.

Majority opinion may well be the correct one. But it about as far from a guarantee as you can possibly get.


Sorry. I appologies for sidetracking the debate. I just found it interesting that you of all people would try to use that argument in this of all threads.

i am glad to see Dave continue the good fight here, and i really wanted to see the defending years later after these games have released.

Both GT5 and Forza 4 are good games... just one is better, and the reviews don't lie.

i am surprised though, as one person mentioned in here earlier... i'm surprised that the vote is not in the 90% area, considering this is GT Planet and all.

still, both good games.

ps... Dave.. i miss you.

to add something a little off topic for you guys that really like Forza as well.. and of course have played both.. for some reason i find Forza fans play both games, while GT fans only play GT..

but next gen.. do you guys think Forza will have day night racing? weather? all the rest? i for one do, and look forward to it.

 

[Tornado]

You offered no proof.
You offered no counter argument.
You didn't show his point was wrong.

You simply said that the majority of people disagree with him therefore he is wrong.

No, he didn't, for the 4th time. Here's what actually happened:

Scaff linked to a thread that showed people talking about how the grass seemed to speed up the Nissan Leaf in the GT Academy tests.
saidur pretty blatantly never even looked in the thread, and offered an alternative explanation which he would have known wasn't valid if he had he looked in the thread.
Scaff then reaffirmed that the people saidur had contended were confused about what the grass was doing were nothing of the sort.


Now, perhaps you just don't know what an appeal to majority is, but that's not it. That's simply trying to force someone to pay attention to evidence that they had already ignored once. Appeal to majority is when you say "Well they all thought this, so you are wrong." What Scaff actually did was say "many of the people in that thread didn't think what you said they thought."

Then you want to have your cake and eat it too by ignoring the fact that the vast majority of people in this thread say that GT5 has better physics than Forza 4.

I love how you keep ignoring why this comparison is invalid.

I just found it interesting that you of all people would try to use that argument in this of all threads.

You know what's actually interesting? Forcing a strawman argument on someone, and then desperately trying to vindicate your original post despite several posts telling you why what you are saying happened didn't happen.
Going along from that, coming into this thread several times purely to latch onto statements ultimately irrelevant to the overall point, misrepresenting said statements (intentionally or not) and then ignoring when the posters of them go back and explain them to you and show you that they weren't anything like what you presented them as...

In fact, that's real interesting. I also note that you haven't picked apart saidur's absolutely blatant appeal to authority that he made in that same exchange where Scaff apparently made his SNAFU. Interesting.




So:

Sorry. I appologies for sidetracking the debate.

By all means, don't bother starting now.

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

Something odd in the Forza 4 physics ?

 

[HighSeasHoMastr]

And?

EDIT: And in parts of GT5, you can't even roll over at all, so.........

 

[Tornado]

Something odd in the Forza 4 physics ?

Lightened, very stiffly sprung SUV on racing slick tires. If the inside wheel comes up at all at speeds like that and you don't correct, you will roll.

Video explicitly tells you to raise your ride height and fully soften your springs, which will cause tuck-in like that. I was in accident where the same thing happened in a failed lane swerve, with the main difference being that I was in a lardy, full size and softly-sprung American car (Chevrolet Lumina) rather than a pickup.

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

So they weren't odd at all ... 2700kg Hummer easily flipped by a curb, Hummer driven on two wheels, have any of these ever happened in real life ? And the strange rolls video, what's odd to me is the way the car bounces

Regarding GT5 videos posted by HighSeasHoMastr, GT5 do have issues as well, thanks for pointing them out

 

[Tornado]

So they weren't odd at all ... 2700kg Hummer easily flipped by a curb

I'm telling you this, not to be condescending, but simply to let you know as someone who has nearly done it himself: If you put an SUV up on two wheels, if you do not correct to put it back down it will rollover. And it was easily flipped by a curb with a fully stiffened suspension, meaning that there was no diminishing of the impact.

And if you keep turning in the same direction it with racing slick tires, it should rollover even more violently than it did in the video. The only thing weighing 2700kg will do is make the rollover hurt more. It will have no effect on anything in regards to preventing a rollover if you've already got it up on two wheels like it was in the video.

Hummer driven on two wheels, have any of these ever happened in real life ?

If you can drive a Peterbilt 289 on two... er, eight wheels, there is no reason you couldn't do the same with a Hummer.

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

All is well, I was just asking for other's opinion, as these videos looked odd to me, cheers.

 

[Minty]

Hummer driven on two wheels, have any of these ever happened in real life ?

Not the H1, yeah, but it's close enough to prove the point.

 

[vsaber]

LOL @ Hummer on 2 wheels video

 

[Goshin2568]

I'm a little late here, but I thought I would toss in my two cents.

Forza 4 has problems with it's physics... Duh. All sims do. But honestly, if you have played both games, GT5 and Forza 4, extensively, with the same wheel and setup and good settings, etc, and you believe that GT5 has better overall physics, than you are either
A) Lying
B) A serious fanboy
or
C) Don't really know what good physics are

Forza 4 just wins. I'm about as unbiased as there is. I have no history with either franchise. GT5P and Forza 4 were my first games in either series, as I mostly played PC sims before that. Forza is just better at this point. It just is.

 

[Scaff]

However the counter you offered was simply this.

It wasn't a counter, it was a request to actually acknowledge the thread in question and that I was not alone in finding this to be the case.

That's exactly what I am referring to, along with the numerous participants in the GTA that have said they find it speeds the car up slightly.

Have you tried it? It slows you down from experience. Only reason to go on it is ideal racing line to shorten distance to finishing line and minimise lateral load on tyres and take advantage of any elevation differences in drivers favour. In 1-1 for example you don't see people going on the grass all the way round or at end because the grass slows you down. You only see people going on grass on select parts mainly for reasons stated above.

The GTP OLR approves of the image you chose as far as I know. The main difference is though that GT5 or GTA2012 allows you to have 3 wheels outside track edge, if it was 2 then it would be just like what real life racing regulations are and most of the time when you got at least one wheel on track, you normally have two or only one for a very short period of time.

Good job you don't get perfect drive isn't it?

Yes I have tried it and am not alone in finding that at times it doesn't slow you down.

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?t=252147

I utterly fail to see what is wrong with me supplying a link to information that shows others have experienced the same thing. It was not offered of proof of anything other that me not being the only person to experience it.

You offered no proof.
You offered no counter argument.
You didn't show his point was wrong.

So I didn't post any information on why corner cutting should not be allowed based on real world regulation?

Oh wait:

You seem to have not watched the full replays of the fastest laps then as I can assure you that they would not be classed as clean under GTP OLR regs. As for a car being that far off the track being allowable in real life regulations that is utter nonsense, I quote the FIA regulations from both F1, the WTCC, GT2, GT3, World Endurance, etc:


Source - http://argent.fia.com/web/fia-public.nsf/62B9C15AB7B9819EC12579BB0041AC9F/$FILE/2012%20FIA%20WTCC%20Sporting%20Regulations%20V%208.03.pdf

The FIA define the track as being set by the track line boundary.

What is allowed in the GTA would get you black flagged at almost any real world racing event, hell off track excursions of that nature will get you kicked off circuit at a track day.

Nor did I explain why from a physics point of view why the car in question should not be able to do this?

Oh, wait:

That's exactly what I am referring to, along with the numerous participants in the GTA that have said they find it speeds the car up slightly.

Now putting aside the rules of the GTA (which for a competition that is championed by many as proof that GT5 is 'better' seems to have a strange idea of actual racing regulations) the slight issue of physics does rear its head with the above shot.

The leaf has an open diff, which means that drive will go to the wheel with the least resistance, in this case the one on the grass, the end result of which should not be perfect drive from both wheels, which is what happens if you do the above.

This is also a discussion that SA likes to have and he is more than aware of my view on the grass on both and why I believe this occurs:

GT5 does not do a good job of simulating grass at all, nor does FM4, they pretty much both just mess with the surface texture to make it a bit rougher and then throw down a change to the mU co-efficent in GT5 and FM4. With it being lower in GT and higher in FM4 (to the point is screws with the rolling resistance of the tyre).

Neither of them apply it consistently (which is my main issue), in FM4 for example its possible to drive well of track in places and not come across it and in other places its right on the track edge. GT5s issue is that it makes the grass too slippy in places (the first video above shows at least three cars cutting onto the grass without issue before the guy crashes himself - a crash that is as much the result of a heroic but daft overtaking attempt) and also allows you to cheat if you wish (as you have clearly said people do).

The physics of co-ef on grass (and any loose surface) is stupidly complex and neither FM4 nor GT5 get close to getting it right, a point I have consistently made.

Oh and the bit I highlighted comes from Saidur Ali stating quite clearly that the grass in GT5 can speed you up

Also the grass in GT5 allows you to still travel at high speeds without losing speed in road cars compared to being on tarmac from what I remember.

If GT5s is a crude anti-cheat mechanism, why can it be used to aid speed while also punishing drivers asking too much of the car and their skill level just like in real life.

My approach to the grass in GT5 and FM4 has always remained consistent, both are poor and both are poor for different reasons (which I have repeatedly over a number of thread covered), Saidur however has changed tact in regard to this matter. You wish to raise issue with my posts then do it based on the position I have consistently and clearly outlined, however I would expect you to question the other side of the debate with the same voracity.

You simply said that the majority of people disagree with him therefore he is wrong.

I have (as illustrated above) done no such thing.

Then you want to have your cake and eat it too by ignoring the fact that the vast majority of people in this thread say that GT5 has better physics than Forza 4.

I've not ignored that at all, rather I have now twice clearly explained by both your accusation is invalid (I've clearly addressed the points raised) and inaccurate unless 100% of the 82% have played both GT5 and FM4.

You have however totally ignored this very point twice now.

Now all of a sudden it's not a case of the majority view......now its analysis of who has played what game and who voted for what reason and what proof did they offer.

The complete oposite of what you did when countering an argument by simply claiming that it went against the majority view.


You would never accept that argument if it was used against you in this thread and you would be correct not to.

So dont expect him to accept that argument when you use it against him from another thread.

Majority opinion may well be the correct one. But it about as far from a guarantee as you can possibly get.


Sorry. I appologies for sidetracking the debate. I just found it interesting that you of all people would try to use that argument in this of all threads.

Nor have I ever claimed otherwise or used as 'proof'.

To be blunt you appear to have not bothered to read my entire contribution to the discussion before jumping on an invalid point.

 

[thelvynau]

Im going to get some popcorn anyone up for some while we see where this goes?