I never said its "the only" ...
Unfortunately you did. I'll show you in a moment.
This:
is technically correct, but it almost doesn't matter, because I wasn't referring to these statements when I said
The issue with this reasoning is that you confuse (or intentionally substitute) one of many possible explanations with the only "logical" conclusion.
Instead, I was referring to the very particular bit of yours, quoted in my post right before this line, in which you decided to demonstrate your outstanding competence in formal logic, but instead messed it all up because you didn't use correct English terminology.
You see, when you are trying to use words like "theory" and "conclusion" without understanding their exact meaning, people who still bother to read your posts get the impression that you are presenting a formal, 100% verifiable, mathematics-grade solid, complete truth. I don't blame you for not using the proper terms "antecedent" and "consequent" - I don't use them myself, it makes a person look like an arrogant twat, if anything. However, you should be more careful when you wrap your personal opinions with a pseudo-scientific verbiage.
Ideally, you should have called things what they really are: "observation" and "possible explanation". I wouldn't say a word if you would do it this (or sufficiently similar) way, especially considering that it would go completely in line with your previous statements, which are indeed unambiguously designated as opinions.
Its not my fault, that you presume that i somehow know the ultimate thruth.
That's exactly your fault, because it was your choice of terminology. Don't tell me you are going to play a poor, illiterate Czech sod again, please - my heart will break!
Why I think it's an opinion, and not an actual proof? Because it's incomplete. Your "conclusion", strictly speaking, does not form a complete set of possible reasons that could be used to explain the observed Larian's behaviour. You probably just listed the one you think has a highest probability, or maybe because you want it to be this way - only you could know the real reason. And this brings us to your next question:
there could be many reasons why we still don't have a "Send To Camp" shortcut. Here are some, just as plausible as yours, in no particular order:
- They don't care and don't even consider it, because they think it's not worth the time discussing it;
- They have it on their backlog, but it's been de-prioritised to abyss (like, post-release "maybe");
- They have it on their backlog, and it's going to appear in the next patch;
- They might be considering changes to the send-to-camp functionality, which means there's no point adding a shortcut now, as the whole thing might change in the future. Say, they might be thinking about removing the whole thing altogether, so we would have to fast travel to camp to put items into the stash;
Based on what exactly you are evaluating plausibility of those options? O_o
It's very simple, really: I consider the probabilities of these situations to be above zero. They are all
possible reasons, just like yours (although in no way this list forms a complete set). Take options 2 and 3 for example, since they are very similar: unless someone from Larian will make an official statement, like "Yes we do (or "No we don't") have this feature in our backlog, so please would you two be so kind to stop frying the noodle of our forum's moderators" - unless we know for certain, it's impossible to completely rule it out. Oh, and that's a pretty basic logic, by the way.
The rest of my previous post is directly derived from your mis-use of terminology explained above, so can be skipped, except for this:
claim that "Mechanic is MEANT to be slow, boring and tedious ..." IS the reason.
Speaking about "competences in English" ...
Eh? The red A is a correction I added to
your quote. It wasn't there in your original.
