1-on-1 on DVD

[Aos]

And you basically contradicted yourself there by talking for everybody yourself.

no i didnt
its not binary like that
-you said that people who bought the 1on1s separately would be angry
-i said no they wouldnt
by that i rejected only a single outcome
the outcome that all of them would unanimously get angry
it doesnt mean that none of them would get angry

also
5 dollars for realtime?
5 dollars for flo?
5 dollars for hugh schot shuffle?
i can go on
these 'effects' are not worth that much
they took a 30 dollar dvd and split it into about 10 5 dollar 1-on-1s
_that_ was the ripoff
if they put it back together that would be the anti-ripoff

 

[Cyrus]

no i didnt
its not binary like that
-you said that people who bought the 1on1s separately would be angry
-i said no they wouldnt
by that i rejected only a single outcome
the outcome that all of them would unanimously get angry
it doesnt mean that none of them would get angry

also
5 dollars for realtime?
5 dollars for flo?
5 dollars for hugh schot shuffle?
i can go on
these 'effects' are not worth that much
they took a 30 dollar dvd and split it into about 10 5 dollar 1-on-1s
_that_ was the ripoff
if they put it back together that would be the anti-ripoff

I understand that you are a programmer, but your argument just makes your past argument invalid. If you say "it doesn't mean that none of them would get angry" it completely contradicts your last argument. You said "no they wouldn't" which immediately assumes that you are talking about all the people who could possibly get angry based on Jakeh's argument. If even one person gets angry because of Jakeh's argument, it makes your argument false.

As for the 2nd argument, I agree with it. But remember, most people AREN'T logical. I'm going to put your argument into another perspective though.

So lets say I buy 5 1-on-1's that are $5 each. That is $25. Then a dvd comes out with 10 1-on-1's on it, for $30. I already own 5 of the 1-on-1's on it. Therefore the dvd is $5 more than the worth of the remaining 5 1-on-1's, which is $25 each by itself. So I can spend an extra $5 and get a pretty dvd with my 1-on-1's on it OR I can buy the 1-on-1's separately and save $5.

Hehehe, I could be completely wrong though.

 

[rossmarc]

I've got one I'll sale you. I copied all my 1 on 1 's to DVD when I reformatted my computer.

 

[Aos]

I understand that you are a programmer, but your argument just makes your past argument invalid. If you say "it doesn't mean that none of them would get angry" it completely contradicts your last argument. You said "no they wouldn't" which immediately assumes that you are talking about all the people who could possibly get angry based on Jakeh's argument. If even one person gets angry because of Jakeh's argument, it makes your argument false.

um no thats the opposite
his statement = (people would all get angry)
my statement = not (his statement) = not (people would all get angry)
so if (people would all get angry) = false then
not (people would all get angry) = not (false) = true
so if a single person is not angry my statement is true and his is false
when i said "it doesnt mean that none of them would get angry" i was assuming he made this mistake
not (people would all get angry) = (no person will get angry)
which is not true

So lets say I buy 5 1-on-1's that are $5 each. That is $25. Then a dvd comes out with 10 1-on-1's on it, for $30. I already own 5 of the 1-on-1's on it. Therefore the dvd is $5 more than the worth of the remaining 5 1-on-1's, which is $25 each by itself. So I can spend an extra $5 and get a pretty dvd with my 1-on-1's on it OR I can buy the 1-on-1's separately and save $5.

right
the dvd would be quite a bit cheaper
but its target audience would definitely be the people would bought none or very few 1-on-1s
because for the rest it would not be a good deal
unless they include extra features

 

[Cyrus]

um no thats the opposite
his statement = (people would all get angry)
my statement = not (his statement) = not (people would all get angry)
so if (people would all get angry) = false then
not (people would all get angry) = not (false) = true
so if a single person is not angry my statement is true and his is false
when i said "it doesnt mean that none of them would get angry" i was assuming he made this mistake
not (people would all get angry) = (no person will get angry)
which is not true

Ah, ok. This is true

 

[Cracked_Magic]

So, this could be code used in AI that allows it to determine whether the anger in a crowd is widespread or not...........

 

[Aris.SA]

without reading the posts above.

I think that one of the goals on 1 on 1, its to teach the sleights and the price..

 

[Frodo]

thats not rational
and theyve already done this
just in reverse
with the release of the trillogy
but forget about the order
as it stands now
you can either buy a single trillogy trick off of here
or you can get a discount by getting all of them
it would be the same thing if they release a dvd of current 1-on-1s
that would be cheaper than the sum of each trick

Yeah I've been noticing that for a while since I've been watching the Trilogy, but I still need to really step my skills up to get it all down the change where they flick the card *I think it's the cardini change but I'm not sure* is SICK along with all the flourishes. Anway I've been noticing how a lot of the things they have on the 1 on 1 are from the Triolgy such as subway, swiss made, chris kenners 4 for 4, exc.