Timeline for Video conversion question
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 10, 2010 at 14:19 | comment | added | Grace Note StaffMod | Unknown context? It's asking how to program a specific piece of gaming hardware. It doesn't fail the "for gamers" test, because it's not asking how to program an application for gamers, it's asking how to alter a specific gaming peripheral. Which is unlike this question, which as stated by Strix "He is finished with the gaming tool". As for motivation, motivation guides you towards understanding the nature of the question, but it's the nature of the question we judge on, not the motivation behind it. | |
| Nov 10, 2010 at 10:06 | comment | added | DrFish | What I understand from a question being on- or off-topic is motivation, beside relevance. See this question: gaming.stackexchange.com/questions/9135/… . I evaluated it as almost off-topic because the question itself emanates from an unknown context. As soon as jcollum edits his question, I can reconsider my position. But here, I clearly think this whole thing HAS A MOTIVATION in terms of gaming, even if answers to it may not. | |
| Nov 10, 2010 at 2:30 | comment | added | tzenes | @Bora if I could provide an answer to badp's question that had nothing to do with gaming (perhaps nothing to do with fraps) would that satisfy you that this was offtopic? | |
| Nov 7, 2010 at 19:49 | comment | added | DrFish | I'm giving up Arda, you don't seem to understand what I am trying to say. | |
| Nov 7, 2010 at 13:08 | comment | added | user56 | My point was that b is no longer related to a, because b can be caused by c and d just the same as a, with the same result. | |
| Nov 7, 2010 at 12:51 | comment | added | DrFish | Of course it doesn't. It is not a time based relationship (a is followed by b), but causality (a occurs because of b). In this case there is at least one c that can happen because b happened. | |
| Nov 7, 2010 at 12:49 | history | edited | DrFish | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
typo
|
| Nov 7, 2010 at 12:45 | comment | added | user56 | If we're going to pull out logical fallacies, try "post hoc ergo propter hoc." Just because B happens after A, that doesn't make A related to B. | |
| Nov 7, 2010 at 12:43 | history | answered | DrFish | CC BY-SA 2.5 |