I believe the reason why people are being asked to reveal who they are (and the position that they hold) is to reduce the number of wild accusations. If JM Hardy were to post that 'Catalyst is doing x' it holds a lot more weight then if I were to post the same thing, given that I have no relationship to the company bar buying their products.

You're arguing about two different things, though. You are referring to "factual" (read: potentially verifyable) statements, whereas he is talking about logical arguments.
For the former context is nescessary and position and identity can go a long way to lend credibility to the argument. In the latter, identity and context are pretty much irrelevant; the argument is based on logical premises and conclusions.

Soo, i've just been to my FLGS and would have been able to buy Vice, and both the german/english versions of Feral Cities and Running Wild.

Exactly my point, I was struck by the dichotomy that some how wanting to keep business matters private is wrong while at the same time being unwilling to state the name of the "actual and honest business", his words not mine, was cool and novel.

No my argument is that business organization keeping their business private is not automatically a bad thing.

<shrug> By the same token, a business that reveals some of their sales data is not a bad thing either. It depends on the nature of the company and the industry.

Certainly, Mr. "W". I happily work for eTapestry, a software-as-a-service company and wholly-owned subsidiary to Blackbaud. Google it. Our consumer base are those who hold 501c(3) status.

Also, my handle is my real name. I don't post statements on the Internet that I would be fearful to say to someone's face, be it due to a business clause or perhaps not wanting to come off like an abrasive and defensive ass.

I would post under my real name but then you would all get me confused with a political blog writer. Frag that chummers.
Oh, how I do miss 10 years ago where a search on my birthname would get you only hits on me and now mostly returns political material that is not how I lean.

Seriously makes it hard to put my name up and have people accuse me of supporting the same things he does. But I do list my location and any local can find me pretty easily (just go to our one gamestore ), as I the nickname has rolled with me for ... 20 years now. Imagine that, I wonder why I've had this nick for 20 years.

BlueMax

Was that so hard?

You made the statement that puzzled me you said.


Conceit and sarcasm in one convenient package. I'm not going to get into an internet business practice pissing contest but I will say that what works for a business who's primary customer base is schools and non-profits may not work for one who's primary business is say defense contracting or fast food (the textbook example) or other things.

But since you have decided to make this personal, I will say this, find me a Origins or Gencon. It shouldn't be hard at the Shadowrun room. I'm fortunate that my given name is rare enough it's usually identification enough in an informal setting it won't be hard. Once you've met me you might see that I have many flaws and shortcomings, but one thing I seldom suffer from is fear of saying something to someones face.

Lurker, don't you think it's a bit hypocritical to continually harp on what you believe are false comments made by others, when you yourself will never respond when something you've said is pointed out to be false?

I mean, this isn't a matter of trying to cover up biases. Everyone here knows I'm disgruntled and not fond of Bills and Coleman, and you're pretty much acting as a corporate shill at this point. We can be honest about that. What concerns me is the degree: Jason Hardy isn't lambasting people with the vigor you are and he's paid by the company. Would it kill you to at least stick to reasonable forms of debate, like sucking it up and admitting it when you have your facts mixed up or (oh horrors!) someone else might have a valid opinion of the situation?

Admitting you are wrong on the internet? Nevaarrrrr!!!!!111!1!11oneoneone111!!!

On the other hand, it could also have the opposite effect, where people get even more confused about why said political blogger seemed schizophrenic. You might have to post some political stuff as well, but that would just add more confusion to the fire!

/Paul

If i was doing that yes it would absolutely be hypocritical. I have made mistakes and misstatements here and I have done my best to acknowledge them as they've come up. If i missed one or even a few, I hope I havn't made that many I'll apologize for that now.



Oh for the love of pete first off your accusation (by the use of the word shill) is that I'm paid by the company to defend them is false. I am no company plant in fact I made my affiliations quite clear way back but moving on from that.

Uncle Lurker Breaks it Down:

Everyone who is upset with the company in this thread want's everyone else to be upset with the company. Anyone who isn't as as upset as them will be termed a collaborator/shill/"towing the party line". This is more or less a well established social trend. What I lambast, what I always lambast is lies and slander. That's why I jumped on Cain, because his unacknowledged misstatements reached the point where he was even mentally deficient or bald face lying to try and whip up a greater frenzy. I do have a natural urge to correct inaccuracies where I see them and lies doubly so regardless of my stance on an issue.`

The situation here is bad enough that if even a portion of the things that have been intimated are true it will quite literally shake itself out to the point of failure. Now this will sadden me because not only will a bunch of people not get paid, but even more direct it will at the very least mess with release schedules and other things worse then it already has. That, as much as it makes me an uncaring dick to say so, is how this honestly affects me. WHether or not I can buy the end product. All that other stuff is out of sight out of mind for me.

He didn't say you ARE a shill, he said you were ACTING like one. That is a fair assessment and no reason for you to get upset. Please be mindful of the subtle differences language can produce that may have drastic effects on the actual meaning of what is conveyed.

Funny, I'm mostly amused by this trainwreck – and what upsets me are books burning in development hell.

Oddly enough, I don't feel termed… why do you?

Given your slander of (former) freelancers, you really should start in front of a mirror.

Yeah...I'm gonna call BS on this one. But, apology accepted.


You've been knocking down everyone that states anything bad about Loren or Randall or Catalyst while blithely ignoring the actual information that has been released, repeatedly misquoting others or mistaking the content of their statements, and all along pretending you've got the moral high ground and everyone else doesn't know shite. While you are probably not paid, you are doing the same job for free.


This is probably the truest statement you've made on all these threads/


...and this is blatantly false. There are many fans and freelancers or ex-freelancers on these threads who have come out in support of Catalyst (and Shadowrun in general) who haven't been accused or targeted or insulted in any way. Maybe you missed it because no one decided to stop and harp on the fact that Shadowrun has a loyal fanbase who love the books put out under Catalyst, and even with all the accusations that are flying around they just want the game they love to continue on. These people aren't toeing the company line (which is pretty much reserved for employees et al. who actually are taking Catalyst's words at face value), and they have not been insulted for it.


I call shenanigans. If Cain ever misspoke in claiming people were "forced out," he's provided a reasonable definition of why he believes his statement was substantially correct. It's clearly an opinion, and he's entitled to it, and some people even agree with him. Your continual attacks on Cain, and your repeated misuse or misunderstanding of others' statements is more dishonest or libelous than anything Cain has done.


Bullshit. Mate, you haven't even written a single post that I can't read without wincing in phantom pain. If you want to start actually correcting inaccuracies, go back and look at what you've written over the last three threads. Focus on basic English and then work your way up to where you make actual errors of fact, and ignore them when somebody (like me) points them out.


Which would be fine - if you actually followed through on those sentiments. The fact that you're continually harassing people about these points shows that there's stuff that's very much on your mind, or else you'd just leave it be. If you hadn't made such a big deal about Cain's original post, I doubt even Cain would remember exactly what he said right now. Your actions have, basically, perpetuated the problem you claim not to care or think about.

Here's the thing though, this is actually a running record, we know exactly what you said, when you said it, and who you said it to. So we know exactly what you lambasted Cain for and what you lambasted him with. Here it is to jog your memory:



Remember that? The thing where you were lambasting Cain for his "lies" when in fact he had made a true statement? And you still haven't apologized to him? Or the part where you are to this day apparently standing by your accusation that Can was wrong to say that Jennifer had said that she had been asked to falsify royalty reports even though she did in fact say that?

Someone needs lambasting for lies. But it isn't Cain.

-Frank

Citation Needed!

I have not been knocking down anything bad anyone has stated about these folks or evne the company, what i've basically said, over and over and over and over, to the point of diminishing returns obviously. Is that folks should keep it to the factual and keep it to the realistic. The closest I've come to actually defending Loren or Randall was my suggestion that there was a very small chance of jail time coming of this.

Did I miss the statement where Jennifer got down to why she quit in a multitude, oh yes I most certainly did. T Did i get called upon it immediately, yes, did I acknowledge it? I thought i did, I'm not going back looking for it.

Let's look at this way.

Jason accused of lying or spin on a regular basis.
Patrick: Accused of towing the company line and therefore getting paid for it.
Everyone else left who you basically, oh what's the quote from Bull's sig? Fairly hilarious.

Regarding leaving it be: Oh i'm sorry just because I disagree with you I'm sposed to leave it be? The same could be said for each and every one of us here, after all despite what Frank thinks the issue isn't decided here.


Anyway this likely could have been more lucid, and I'm sure will cause AH more fantom pain, but then again I've got lunch to take so this will be my last post on here for a least a bit. Sorry AH if my internet postings don't make your soul sing internally with the glory of the enlish language, you'll just have to deal or ignore, either option is valid.

There are more posts about each other then the topic.

Locking Thread

New Thread
http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?showtopic=30595