213374U

This one: How else, in cash. <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As far as I'm concerned, that quote is faked. "

Yay!

I've had the best masters.

A .50 drunk nun, eh?

Does that mean you are going to shut up? Wow, that's a relief.

You're kidding yourself, and you know it.

For no apparent reason? Never. Well, you should. You know, you might actually learn something. Not to use elementary school comebacks, at worst.

Didn't I tell you to shut up already?

Ooh. Now you're quoting the forum guidelines? Well, it looks like you missed this important bit: And that's exactly what you did (<{POST_SNAPBACK}>). So, yeah.

It is very insulting to insult a person? And, um, I guess it's flattering to be insulted then?

Heh. Mom jokes now? Give me a break. By the way, he did start it (<{POST_SNAPBACK}>). So, yeah. Shut up.

No, I meant he should shut up because no one cares about the nanny attitude. Now, I mean you should shut up... just because.

What's the matter? I thought you had "calmed down". Guess redefining one's personality is a tad harder than one's age. )

Shut up.

No. There are very few people that can make investments "for the hell of it". Most people need the money that the investment will supposedly turn for something. In the example it's unimportant if you needed the $102 for a medicine or to buy a house. And I didn't remember specifying that without the medicine you would die if you failed your first investment. LOL Let me point the obvious flaw in that statement. If you trust the welfare of your business to other investments, eventually you will find that no investments yield profit, as they were planned not to, and to rely on the success of other investments. Therefore, every single investment you make must turn profit individually and by itself, otherwise it's a failure. A positive "balance of payments" in a business doesn't necessarily preclude some investments from being total failures.

Hey! I pay for my electrons and I choose how to waste them!

Let me guess! :ph34r:

I thought you told some tale yesterday that involved your short fuse and you kicking some kid's ass? That certainly isn't very coherent with your comments today. Redefining your age didn't yield the expected results and now you are going to try redefining your personality or what?

The problem with that is that Interplay didn't instantly went down because at that time they had other sources of income. Again, look at the example of Troika. Their games didn't just "failed to sell as well as we'd have liked". Their games' lack of commercial success eventually brought their company down. There is nothing worse from a business standpoint, which means that their games were absolute failures. No. If you needed $102 to buy a medicine to save your life, getting back $99 is still an absolute failure, as is getting back $98 or $0. Getting $101 would be a failure. An extreme example, but it serves to illustrate my point. You could argue that you could still invest back your $99, but still, the first case was a wasted effort in which you have lost money and time, and decreased your chances of achieving your objective (in a developer's case, staying in business. In the example, staying alive).

In fact I find that sad, rather than humorous.

You are splitting hairs once again. Let's see, if you do something that ultimately results in (or contributes to) you going out of business, it's a failure (PST falls into this category). An absolute failure, since it causes the worst possible effect from a business standpoint. That is, exactly the opposite of what you intended with that action. Now, if you make an investment and that investment doesn't return the expected profit, it is a failure (it has failed), but it doesn't necessarily mean that it has hurt your business. All this, assuming that the predictions you make for the investments aren't unrealistic. If that's not the case, you'll be out of business soon, anyway. Well, I enjoy lying on my bed, but I know nobody's going to pay me for that. Which means that, alas, I'll have to make a living somehow. If I enjoy my job, even better. But Meier's goal was basically to make a living. As you said, everything else was just a bonus. Fair enough. But that's not much of a valid argument as backing your original statement goes, as all you are saying is that nobody really does anything to be "critically acclaimed".

Yes, it made money. Was it remotely profitable as a business initiative? No. That's what counts. I don't know what exactly do you mean by that, but in Sid Meier's case, I'm pretty sure he didn't get into the game business to be "acclaimed", but more likely, just to make a living. But hey, if "critical acclaim" is so important, I have an idea for a business but I'm somewhat sort on cash. How about you work for me and I'll pay you in "critical acclaim"?

LOL

Yes, only metaphysical and fractal-related questions, please.