Viewing Thread:
"DEAD Phoenix. Emphasis on the DEAD."

I almost called this thread "Nooooo!".

It looks like Dead Phoenix, whihc looked like one of the most promising and original games of recent times, let alone the Cube only, has been canned. I was looking forward to that. Why couldn't they have got rid of Killer 7?

http://gamesradar.msn.co.uk/news/default.asp? subsectionid=160&articleid=65757&pagetype=2

Never mind.

I thought I had...

...but whether you said "is" or "could be" is crucial.

Missing the point? I think you're just changing your argument. From that article, I wrote:

"That story doesn't tell us anything. Capcom just haven't said anything about Dead Pheonix in a while, that's all. It may well still be coming out."

Which, given the evidence in your link, was a perfectly justified statement. There's a chance that news may not have been speculation - but was written like that. I don't care whether I said it COULD have been or WAS - lets not nitpick; it's the lowest form of argument.

In fact, lets just drop the whole thing.

You're missing the point. You didn't say "It COULD just be speculation", you said "It IS just speculation". It wasn't, I win, you lose.

No weapons needed.

cookie monster wrote:
> maddmun wrote:
> Both of you, GIVE IT UP.
>
> It's like an argument in my family, you ain't gonna change the other
> person's mind.
>
> You can if you use weapons.

But you can't use them across the internet.

And nope, weapons don't work at my house.

Blank wrote:
> Maverick42 wrote:
> Blank wrote:
> Maverick42 wrote:
> The one you originally linked to had no hard facts and was just
> speculation. So there.
>
> It wasn't speculation as it actually had been canned. It didn't say
> any reasons, which was why I brought up the second article as proof.
>
> Yes. So my comment was entirely justified.
>
> No, because it was not just speculation. You said it was. It wasn't.
> You said it was.
>
> It wasn't.

It could just have well have been. Perhaps they did have proof - I don't think they did. That's a matter of perception and to some extent, opinion. What isn't, however, is the way that article was worded. It was written exactly as a rumour or speculative piece would be, with phrases such as "official announcement" or any other kind of proof in absence.

I accept it is the truth, as you posted a link to a website that proved it. But the fact that you had to do that is a testimony to my argument.

maddmun wrote:
> Both of you, GIVE IT UP.
>
> It's like an argument in my family, you ain't gonna change the other
> person's mind.

You can if you use weapons.

Both of you, GIVE IT UP.

It's like an argument in my family, you ain't gonna change the other person's mind.

Maverick42 wrote:
> Blank wrote:
> Maverick42 wrote:
> The one you originally linked to had no hard facts and was just
> speculation. So there.
>
> It wasn't speculation as it actually had been canned. It didn't say
> any reasons, which was why I brought up the second article as proof.
>
> Yes. So my comment was entirely justified.

No, because it was not just speculation. You said it was. It wasn't. You said it was.

It wasn't.

The phoenix: a fiery mythological bird which when it died, rose again from it's ashes into a fiery bird once again.

Hence, from this we can conclude two things:

Dead Phoenix probably never existed in the first place,

and 2:

If it did exist, it will rise once again.

That's ma story and I'm stickin to it.