Prez wrote on Jan 11, 2012, 12:23:
Sorry, Peeeling; in some ways it's easier to deal with Gtard69. I know he's a drooling, blithering idiot. But you? How could someone who writes so well and displays such obvious intelligence be so dense?

The only strawmen in this discussion are the pitiful ones you are building to avoid addressing the obvious point: there is no defensible reason to require constant online connectivity.

And when you take a break from throwing out your impenetrable walls of text and do give supposed reasons attempting to defend such an action, said reasons are so pitifully, laughably lame that it's nigh impossible for me to accept that even YOU actually believe them.

That some people are of the opinion that the always-online requirement is a non-issue is easy for me to accept; as I said, everyone can decide for themselves what's a deal-breaker and what isn't. My issue is with people pretending they see no reason why some of us feel that this IS a deal-breaker. Such willfulness ignorance is bothersome to me.