Gets on at me for making a blanket statement, makes a blanket statement... and I'm not saying there weren't people that wanted the classic ones, that's your assumption.
Speaking of assumptions, I didn't assume many meant all. Did I say that? Nope. And even though it's irrelevant, as for arguments looking "desperate", really? Insulting the argument because you don't agree with it rather than proving it wrong? Not helping anyone.
First of all, where in my comment did I make a blanket statement?
I think you need to look up what the term "blanket statement" means.
Second of all,
...and I'm not saying there weren't people that wanted the classic ones, that's your assumption.
That's exactly what you stated though, the second you used the word "they", an all inclusive term, in response to someone saying "many people", you start speaking about the "many people" as if they were all one group with one non-variable point of view. The "many" is there to say that people's stance on the subject is not a definitive one and that they(all of them) can't be grouped by all inclusive phrases in regards to the subject because they don't all have matching feelings towards the subject. But "many" of them do or don't.
By you responding to a phrase highlighting a variable group of people("many people") with a word like "they", you're speaking on behalf of them as if they all shared one opinion, which is exactly what you did:
Do you have any idea how many people actually wanted...
No, because that's not what they wanted and if you'd actually read what they had to say and kept it in your head you wouldn't be here posting what you think they wanted.
If you didn't want to blanket them, you should have said "many of those people" or "some of those people" or any number of words or phrases along those lines.
Lastly,
Speaking of assumptions, I didn't assume many meant all. Did I say that? Nope. And even though it's irrelevant, as for arguments looking "desperate", really? Insulting the argument because you don't agree with it rather than proving it wrong? Not helping anyone.
Going off of your statement you would have had to of had assumed that, unless you're saying you magically have the ability to know exactly who he is referencing in his completely ambiguous description of "how many people".
I also didn't agree or disagree with the subject in my comment, just your way of responding to it.
