Ignore my previous post - it was in suppor tof Philip_ed in a now-deleted 'Friday update' thread, as of a minute go, and mis-applied here.
HTML Code:
I won't be so bold as to claim I have any statistics to claim a vast majority are happy, but I have noticed that I am not the only one that doesn't share your oppinions.
Of course. But the damning nature of much criticism-of-the-criticism leads me to believe you are a wee bit more passionate, and annoyed about it, than that. Or perhaps the realisation that having a go at the critics is not going to improve the game itself?
It isn't about having a monopoly on opion, or even a diversity. It's about getting to the core of just how bad things are, and why, and what is being done to improve them. If the past is skated-over semi-apologetically, and the future made a never-never land of rosy improvements (that seldom happen) what is the point?
There has to be a place for stating core issues in order of seriousness, and what is to be done about them in a meaningful way.
Until we see a proper diagnosis of just how bad things are, things are not likely to really improve, if at all. That is partly why the sillier defenders-of-the-fait. h should not be allowed to scattergun all critics just because it suits them. It benefits no-one - least of all them. At least, that is if they really do want to see major improvements and not just sling keyboards around.
The outcry could be much worse than it is. It isn't about being scathing, or one-upmanship, it's about getting the facts down, and the extent of the breakages (severe).
Ben
