> If you can come up with a better example, I'd love to hear it. I don't have a side in this discussion. I just stepped in to note one reason why you might ha

> If you can come up with a better example, I'd love to hear it. I don't have a side in this discussion. I just stepped in to note one reason why you might have gotten the reply you did, since you specifically noted "Don’t know what you’re getting at." I was merely attempting to illustrate why I thought you might have received the response you did. > My argument is that the timing of inputs and outputs to consoles is heavily quantized... That's probably a good argument. That's not what you replied with though. If you had, I don't think you would have gotten the response you did. >> > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. That's as much a point against your comment as against the person that responded to you. Responding to a specific example instead of the position is not responding to the strongest possible interpretation. Then you get responses like you did. Again, I'm not taking a position on this. I only bothered to comment at at because you seemed to indicate you didn't know why you got the response you did. Honestly, I thought you were likely presenting it as a slight tangent, not an argument, since it's fairly common here for people to view any response as someone arguing the other side once they get slightly heated in an argument.