ItemShop only Holiday items?

[FlyingV2]

Getting back to the original question -

I find it odd that FC hasn't commented on this. I assumed -- when I saw a lack of response from FC over this thread -- it was an item which was given from the Xmas quest line, hence the silence from the AO team.
But this wasn't the case.
I know quite a few people held back from buying it (from those I've spoken to in-game about the mask), in the hope it would materialize as one of the free gifts.
Now, the festive season is over, and there's bound to be a drop in demand for a reindeer mask.

It's not the end of the world, and I don't want to bust FC's balls over it; it just seems nonsensical to not comment about a purchasable Xmas item which could have been confused with one of the free festive gifts (perhaps we're overly su****ious of FC!).

[blingoutyourdead]

I find it odd that FC hasn't commented on this.

I don't. If your question doesn't come with $$$ signs attached, they couldn't care less.

[FlyingV2]

I don't. If your question doesn't come with $$$ signs attached, they couldn't care less.

Well, criticism of AO catching up with modern MMO models aside, I think, in this case, they've lost “$$$”.
I would assume it's something to do with their frantic shift in operations, but I've seen people from the AO team posting on the forums past the 16th of December (the date of this thread), and I'm puzzled why no one took the initiative to email Means to ask him for permission to clarify the situation.

[Tazalanche]

they couldn't care less.

So you're saying that they care a lot?

[ArienSky]

It is a reference to the minimum amount of caring..
The statement is that it is physically impossible to care less about the issue than FunCom does.

It is an expression.
and a strange one, as one might think that the amount of care is high, and because they are caring a lot, they will not take a step down to care less.
That is not the right interpretation of the expression/saying though.

Kind Regards
-Ariensky

[Tazalanche]

It is a reference to the minimum amount of caring..
The statement is that it is physically impossible to care less about the issue than FunCom does.

It is an expression.
and a strange one, as one might think that the amount of care is high, and because they are caring a lot, they will not take a step down to care less.
That is not the right interpretation of the expression/saying though.

Kind Regards
-Ariensky

No.
It was a double negative. In the English language, double negatives cancel one another and produce an affirmative sense.

For example:
Two negatives resolving to a positive

In Standard English, two negatives are understood to resolve to a positive. This rule was observed as early as 1762, when Bishop Robert Lowth wrote A Short Introduction to English Grammar with Critical Notes. For instance, "I do not disagree" could mean "I certainly agree". Further statements may be necessary to resolve which particular meaning was intended.

Because of this ambiguity, double negatives are frequently employed when making back-handed compliments. The phrase "Mr. Jones was not incompetent" will seldom mean "Mr. Jones was very competent" since the speaker would have found a more flattering way to say so. Instead, some kind of problem is implied, though Mr. Jones possesses basic competence at his tasks.

[Biancha]

Are those holiday items really *only* available in the shop thing? Kind of weird having to pay to receive your xmass gifts :O

[ArienSky]

Tazalanche, there is no use in arguing, I was nice and explained an english saying for you..
If you disagree, you might as well disagree that "dog" is the english word for the latin "Canis lupus familiaris"..

[Ayria]

I was nice and explained an english saying for you..

Except it's not a saying.

"They couldn't care less" is closer to a colloquialism.

In proper English the sentence is in fact a double negative, we; as a local society (as in, not world wide), have altered it's meaning. For example, the word "y'all" may be heard a lot in the southern states, or from those people who lived there and later moved, and it's accepted as "normal English" yet it is properly classified as a colloquialism because it is a regional bastardization of proper English.

"Dog" meaning "Canis lupus familiaris" is a translation (something I'd think you'd realize since you even said "is the English word for") and has no relation.

[Tazalanche]

Tazalanche, there is no use in arguing, I was nice and explained an english saying for you..
If you disagree, you might as well disagree that "dog" is the english word for the latin "Canis lupus familiaris"..

My reply to you was not argumentative. It was explaining a grammatical fact, with a link for additional reference. I did not state that anything in your comment was unkind. Your comment was incorrect, but was stated in a very polite & nice manner.

To have a disagreement would require a conflict of people's opinions or actions or characters. There was no conflict, therefore a disagreement could not occur. In my last post in this thread, I simply corrected your multiple misstatements to explain my previous comment, with additional clarification.

You seem to have difficulty in deciding if the comment by blingoutyourdead was an expression or a saying, despite it being neither, yet felt the need to explain my own comment, to blingoutyourdead, to me. Thank you for your time and effort on this life altering issue. That was greatly appreciated. Because of your exceptional assistance in attempting to explain myself to me, bless your heart, I can now walk and chew bubblegum at the same time.

[ArienSky]

I am sorry for not reading your argument, but I think it is just a thing too silly to argue about, here is some Monthy Python:
Romani ite domum and another humours video.
Those videos fit the topic of arguing about grammar, just for grammar's sake and totally ignoring the topic at hand..

Now can you get back on the topic of holiday items being ItemShop only, and what you think of that?

Kind Regards
-Ariensky

[CastarasOfPie]

In proper English the sentence is in fact a double negative, we; as a local society (as in, not world wide), have altered it's meaning.

Funny, I've heard people from all over the english speaking world use it - that would technically be world wide, yes?

"Couldn't care less" may well be a colloquialism or whatever but it still has a meaning to much of the english speaking world that doesn't really need to be argued.

I mean, are you gonna start complaining that it isn't raining cats and dogs, there's only raindrops and the occasional fish? Or that the french don't "Fall into the apples", they faint?

[Ayria]

Funny, I've heard people from all over the english speaking world use it - that would technically be world wide, yes?

Well my first hand knowledge of what the remaining English speakers in the world say is limited yes, but even world wide it is a colloquialism and as such cannot be defended as proper English by it's very nature.

I'm not saying it was used wrong or that it shouldn't be used, I'm simply saying that Taza was correct in saying it's a double negative, even if he did miss the obvious fact that it was meant to mean something other then it's literary word for word meaning.

[Tazalanche]

I didn't miss it. I was apparently failing at humor to lighten the mood from where the thread went off topic... then the incorrect definition police arrived & the thread went downhill from there.

My apologies for my part in taking the thread further off topic.

[Esproc]

My only issue is when people say that they "could care less" which means that they possess the ability to do so, instead of "couldn't care less" which literally means one lacking said ability.

Double negative or not it is the correct way to convey the meaning.
Not that this is the least be relevant.

As far as social, I like the idea of social tab being pacifist but then the "serious" armor would need a "serious" overhaul as well.
On festive holidays it is fun to dress up and fight in silly outfits sometimes.
Maybe only for those holidays should social be usable in a fight