EQ2 Flames Consolidated Developer Information List - Page 109

checkov · 03-14-2008, 09:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vcjester

As much of a deffensive bitch you were to me the first time you replied to anything I've said, I have to agree with you here.

OK, I love a good flame as much as anyone else does, but REALLY FOLKS, STOP AND THINK A BIT.

Now I'm not going to say that anyone has lied, but in a democracy the burden is always on the plantif. "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" is thrown around a lot in court rooms because it IS what it is.

We can argue all we want that NPU or any other guild does this, I personally think it happens a lot. BUT....

As for hard core facts and evidence. There honestly is none. We all know that everything posted on this thread could be made up out of thin air by dang near any member of this site.

Copied and Pasted emails: ummm probably the easiest to fake.

Screenshots: next in line, but still doable by any hobby photo editor.

Captured video: probably the toughest "evidence" to modify that we would see here, but still doable with something like Adobe Premiere, After Effects, etc etc. (I'm no video editor myself so I'm not sure what yawl would use)

It's not whether or not that anything said in these forums is fact or fiction, it's the FACT that it's too easy to manufacture evidence by anyone who wanted to do so. Therefore, it breaks down into a he said, she said arguement.

Take everything you read online with a grain of salt and just pretend you're reading the Enquirer or something.

Now, since I love a good flame just as much as the next guy......

FUCK NPU, FUCK SOE AND FUCK THEM TWO TIMIN' DEVS!!

It's logic like this that lets O.J. off. There is always an exception, always some reason to think innocent. It simply boggles my mind. And ftr, many many people have been convicted on circumstantial evidence.

vcjester · 03-14-2008, 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by checkov

It's logic like this that lets O.J. off. There is always an exception, always some reason to think innocent. It simply boggles my mind. And ftr, many many people have been convicted on circumstantial evidence.

This may be true, or it may not be since I don't watch court t.v. and I sure as heck am not going to let Matlock or any other law t.v. show influence my thinking, so I won't give an opinion on that.

I am of the belief though that the majority of the time, unless evidence can be proven to be real by law enforcement, proffesional witnesses (such as doctors, hand writing analyst etc., and even those proffesionals need to convince the jury of there credentials.) it isn't acceptable.

The last period in human history that I can recall where "guilty until proven innocent" was the way to go in a court of law, it was the time of the Inquisition.

Snark · 03-14-2008, 10:03 PM

Fleaball you need to take 2 steps back from the computer and put this in perspective.

I have constructed a strong argument, and NPU has offered little to no resistance.

The conclusion should be obvious.

Do you expect me to get DNA analysis and a doctors statement for the purposes of this thread? Of course not.

checkov · 03-14-2008, 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vcjester

This may be true, or it may not be since I don't watch court t.v. and I sure as heck am not going to let Matlock or any other law t.v. show influence my thinking, so I won't give an opinion on that.

I am of the belief though that the majority of the time, unless evidence can be proven to be real by law enforcement, proffesional witnesses (such as doctors, hand writing analyst etc., and even those proffesionals need to convince the jury of there credentials.) it isn't acceptable.

The last period in human history that I can recall where "guilty until proven innocent" was the way to go in a court of law, it was the time of the Inquisition.

Hopefully you won't be on any juries anytime soon.

Cuz · 03-14-2008, 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vcjester

I am of the belief though that the majority of the time, unless evidence can be proven to be real by law enforcement, proffesional witnesses (such as doctors, hand writing analyst etc., and even those proffesionals need to convince the jury of there credentials.) it isn't.

Must be real interesting when one of your friends tells you he's dating a girl.

Bigguss · 03-14-2008, 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vcjester

This may be true, or it may not be since I don't watch court t.v. and I sure as heck am not going to let Matlock or any other law t.v. show influence my thinking, so I won't give an opinion on that.

I am of the belief though that the majority of the time, unless evidence can be proven to be real by law enforcement, proffesional witnesses (such as doctors, hand writing analyst etc., and even those proffesionals need to convince the jury of there credentials.) it isn't acceptable.

The last period in human history that I can recall where "guilty until proven innocent" was the way to go in a court of law, it was the time of the Inquisition.

so uhh what we need to take NPU and SOE to court over this then? lmao

Emanji · 03-14-2008, 10:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snark

Fleaball you need to take 2 steps back from the computer and put this in perspective.

I have constructed a strong argument, and NPU has offered little to no resistance.

The conclusion should be obvious.

Do you expect me to get DNA analysis and a doctors statement for the purposes of this thread? Of course not.

I think the issue here is the fact that the QA email is pretty much undeniable. Even if there are some questions about the mob timer (which is a much bigger issue than the leaked strats IMO) NPU would just open themselves up for attack on the QA email which IMO they would have no answer for. The silent treatment should be expected. I would love to see NPU stop being the lil putang that they are and face the issue like hetero sexual men. But I'm afraid that's just too much to hope for.

vcjester · 03-14-2008, 10:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snark

Fleaball you need to take 2 steps back from the computer and put this in perspective.

I have constructed a strong argument, and NPU has offered little to no resistance.

The conclusion should be obvious.

Do you expect me to get DNA analysis and a doctors statement for the purposes of this thread? Of course not.

Hey, I said earlier that true or not, it's a hell-a-fun and fabulous flame!! Kudos to you dude!! I personally love to hate pompous pricks that run around braggin about there ubbahness.

But when I see people getting called morons for sitting on the fence stating a pretty logical statement about how none of this can be granted the title of "factual" without further proof..... Well, I tend to be defensive of them.

Anyone trying to stay open minded about anything is never a moron IMHO. Open minded thinkers have my greatest respect..

P.S. To the dude who hopes I never am in a jury, sorry to break it to ya dude, but I've been a member of 2 juries in my life, 1 civil and 1 criminal court 1 federal and 1 district trial. So I do have a fundimental understanding of admissable evidence, procedings, verdicts etc.

checkov · 03-14-2008, 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vcjester

Hey, I said earlier that true or not, it's a hell-a-fun and fabulous flame!! Kudos to you dude!! I personally love to hate pompous pricks that run around braggin about there ubbahness.

But when I see people getting called morons for sitting on the fence stating a pretty logical statement about how none of this can be granted the title of "factual" without further proof..... Well, I tend to be defensive of them.

Anyone trying to stay open minded about anything is never a moron IMHO. Open minded thinkers have my greatest respect..

Open minded thinkers would not demand iron clad evidence. They would be open to the possibilities by definition.

vcjester · 03-14-2008, 10:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by checkov

Open minded thinkers would not demand iron clad evidence. They would be open to the possibilities by definition.

That holds true in civil court where defendants don't have to be 100% guilty to have a verdict go against them, however criminal court is a different thing entirely.