Yes, it does make it clearer. This is a friendly discussion, and it would be a boring world if everyone always agreed on everything without any deviation.Mister_Gosh said:I hope that it's more clear how that might look like it had become a game of one-upsmanship, and how it might seem like you were discounting the opinions of someone who was not as "bought in" as you. You say that that's not what you were trying to do, cool. I wasn't trying to be as provocative as you read my intentions either, so how about we call it even?
My very original point was to illustrate someone with a vested interest as opposed to someone with no vested interest. In other words if I had no LE’s at all it would not affect me at all if I perceive LE’s to be reissued. If I do have LE’s it does affect me if I perceive the LE’s are being re-released. It is not an I have more than someone else issue to me; but that I do have a substantial vested interest.
The debated perceived logic would be -- If I only had one or two LE’s I might be more open to buying the CE’s to save money from having to buy the retired LE’s. If I’ve already purchased all of the LE’s why would I want CE’s for objects I already own if I perceive them to adversely affect my LE’s?