>>8278738>That's literally doesn't address my explanation one bitBecause you're a fuckwit who is so focused on your own fantasy world you can't think outside of the inside of your ass.
Let's begin by your lie
>>8278303>You literally called people who liked it here >>8276926 (You) as having low standards and poor taste. You're claiming i said he has low standards.
What i said is
>IS this sort positivity like how gaming review places can only rate games from a scale of 7-9?>Because thems some really low standards where you can sculpt shit on the level of an 90s GI Joe like >>8276684 or >>8276856 and call it great.This isn't me saying HE has low standards. This is me comparing "great" to what game reviewers do. I disagree with his view that something that poor can be rated as great.
Again, it has nothing to do with HIS taste or HIS standards, because he can like them however he wants. I simply disagree with how he grades that toy.
I know it's hard for you to understand this, because you take criticism about toys extremely personal, but disagreements with his praise of a specific figure ≠ his standards are shit.
Again, it's not an attack on him. Again, I made an analogy to how video game reviewers rate video games, where their ranking standards are from 7-9.
Yes, i basically repeated the same shit because retards need to have shit explained twice.
HIS standards are unknown to me. He called a toy great. I disagree with him saying it's great. I made an analogy. There is no attack on his unknown standards, because his standards nevers never came into question. Video game reviewers ≠ him
THIRD TIME.
This isn't hard to figure out, but here you are, not understanding like a retard.
Shit, if i had made some food analogy, you'd be saying i said he smelled like shit because i likened it to durian fruit.
