Ok, numbskull, here's how it goes:
First, let's take a look back at your initial assertion:
"I don't mean the items listed below aren't ABLE to be upgraded, I'm saying they cannot be upgraded because...".
You start off by saying that X is non-zero (removing the double negation, you say that "the items are able to be upgraded") and then you say that X cannot be non-zero ("they cannot be upgraded").
X cannot be 0 and non-zero at the same time, hence contradiction.
Later on, you go saying the following:
"Just because something has the possibly of being done, doesn't mean you will actually be able to do it."
Let's take the important parts step-by-step.
"something has to possibility of being done" roughly translates to "X can be done", which means X has a non-zero probability of happening.
"doesn't mean you will actually be able to do it" roughly translates to "X is not guaranteed to be doable", which means that X is not 100%
What you just said in this one sentence is that X is neither 0%, nor 100%. In summary "X can, but is not guaranteed to happen", or in context "items can, but are not guaranteed to be upgradeable"
By this point, you have contradicted yourself.
But that's just the contradiction part. The real comedy gold came from "they cannot be upgraded because there are no instructions on HOW.". Which is why I said that just because YOU don't know how to do it, doesn't meant it's not doable. It just means you have yet to figure out how.
Why must we go about comparing our education levels? What does that have to do with being wrong about something?
