Well, not necessarily. Draw a line representing the spectrum from Democrat to Republican. (Yes, it's more complicated than a line, but I'm being not unreasonably simplistic for the purposes of this example.) Now mark the line where you think Bush stands. You are running against Bush in the next election. People will vote for whichever mark is closer to their position on the line. Where do you place your mark to get the most votes?
There is a danger that if you're too close to Bush's mark, the Democrats sufficiently far from you might split and do one of those third-party "we're not going to win, but our candidate brings our views to the table" things. However, if we ignore that possibility, you place your mark to the left of Bush but as close to him as possible. And even with that possibility, you place your mark as close to Bush as you can get under the constraints of the risk of third-party split.
Well, there probably isn't a very good market for classic games on consoles. People who want to play simplistic/classic games can use the web at home, or portable electronic devices like cell phones or PDAs while on the move. People who shell out $150-$200 for heavy-duty pieces of console hardware probably bought them so that they can play games that require cutting-edge technology. There's just no reason why I would buy Frogger or Breakout for the PS2 when I could get those games on my cell or on some flash website. And do those 10-in-1 classic game packs actually sell?
That's not to say that old school games aren't great, and I agree with you that there is an overemphasis on being "3D" and that quality of gameplay has likely suffered as a result. And it is also arguable that creativity in development has dropped off from the level it was at back in the 70s and 80s. (Xbox developers: there is a big market for games that do not involve racing.) However, retro games are not a good fit for consoles.
While extremes may "only really exist as abstract concepts," and people's stances on spam-related legislation can fall anywhere on a continuum, you should keep in mind that you may have to choose between either option A or B in real-life situations. If you're a legislator voting on a bill, for instance. Bills can be modified for a while, but when the bill is finalized it's probably not going to perfectly match your views. But whether or not you just barely agree enough with it or you are in gung-ho agreement, it's going to look like a "Yea" either way, and vice versa with a "Nay" vote.
So if we're talking about control vs. non-control in general, or even on just spam-related issues in general, sure, that post is making a false dichotomy, and sure, it's greatly misleading to ignore all the in-betweens. However, if someone refers to one specific piece of legislation, you might like some parts and not like others, but if someone asks you what you'd vote on it if it were in Congress, you'd have to go to one extreme or the other. (Or you could abstain, of course, but that is simply one more definite option.) Can't sit on fences all the time.
Slashdot Mirror
There is a danger that if you're too close to Bush's mark, the Democrats sufficiently far from you might split and do one of those third-party "we're not going to win, but our candidate brings our views to the table" things. However, if we ignore that possibility, you place your mark to the left of Bush but as close to him as possible. And even with that possibility, you place your mark as close to Bush as you can get under the constraints of the risk of third-party split.
That's not to say that old school games aren't great, and I agree with you that there is an overemphasis on being "3D" and that quality of gameplay has likely suffered as a result. And it is also arguable that creativity in development has dropped off from the level it was at back in the 70s and 80s. (Xbox developers: there is a big market for games that do not involve racing.) However, retro games are not a good fit for consoles.
So if we're talking about control vs. non-control in general, or even on just spam-related issues in general, sure, that post is making a false dichotomy, and sure, it's greatly misleading to ignore all the in-betweens. However, if someone refers to one specific piece of legislation, you might like some parts and not like others, but if someone asks you what you'd vote on it if it were in Congress, you'd have to go to one extreme or the other. (Or you could abstain, of course, but that is simply one more definite option.) Can't sit on fences all the time.