Needing to resort to hypothetical and completely unrealistic scenarios in order to justify your argument should be a clue that your argument is poor. If Mark Kern was planning on rejoining Blizzard why would he putting his face to this petition? Very publicly supporting something that is embarrassing to your would be future employer is not the best way to gain their favour.
Hmmm, not precisely. Might not even be a matter of numbers and costs; And merely it not fitting their "vision" and looking at the future and not towards the past.
So, if you don't have the numbers and the real reasons, please refrain from stating opinions as facts? I mean.. it's what people ask of pro-legacy servers all the time, why is it so hard to lead by example?
I don't need evidence to support nothing, because there is nothing to support. You don't have to take what I say with a grain of salt, but then again I don't give a shit.
Nost was overtuned in one area, undertuned the next, filled with all kinds of bugs and issues. So what, so was Vanilla. Stealth issues were throughout Vanilla, even to WOTLK. It's a fact, I don't need evidence to support, secondly it's impossible to prove now anyways.
Blizzard doesn't have the numbers. There was even a discussion a ways back of a GM basically implying they were shocked at the amount of community that actually wants this. Now, I know a GM doesn't speak for Blizzard, but obviously something is going on internally that came as a surprise. Also, as a Blizzard customer since WoW, I have never known, or known anyone who has received any type of study or poll that Blizzard was using to claim these fabricated numbers you are claiming exist. A professional saying that it may not be viable because of X costs is not the same as them having an accurate representation of the numbers.
Does it work on par with current Chevs? Is it a demand of the customers that buy Chevs? Because you can bet your ass Chev would do something like Blizzard did, if it felt that bite. The bite of losing face to a bunch of amateurs with not even half the tech, not even half the people, and not even half resources.
A giant swatted a bee, and the hive is pissed. While the giant will have it's way, it doesn't mean it comes out unscathed from this, it will feel the sting.
Is this mutual exclusive? Let's not try and Straw Man an argument by claiming one side is just petty, therefore every point they prove is somehow invalid. I would on the other hand would actually like people against the idea to still provide more information backing up their claims.