Thats not how it works ; )
The one making the claim needs to back those if contested. Law school basics. You need a case before making acusations because you will be called upon to proove those same claims. Simple.
Last edited:
The Star Citizen Thread v5
- Thread starter Brett C
- Start date
- Status
Thats not how it works ; )
The one making the claim needs to back those if contested. Law school basics. You need a case before making acusations because you will be called upon to proove those same claims. Simple.
Repeating it does not make it true. Especially not when you then instantly go on to contradict yourself.
You made the claim. It has been contested. You have utterly failed to back up your stance in spite of given ample opportunity to do so. We can thus safely conclude that what you said is not true, even though it would have been trivial for you to support your stance if you had made even a fleeting attempt at trying to do so. Instead, you just hurled yourself down an infinite “nuh-uh”-spiral that only ever further demonstrated your lack of evidence or proof.
So. Proof. Cough it up, or accept that you cannot make any claim to knowledge on the matter.
Last edited:
Backer24 made severe and specific serious claims against CIG kickstarter campaign, calling it a fraud. If there is anyone that has to back those claims its him or his web lawyer
Last edited:
…and you made claims that you have yet to prove, even though it should be trivially easy for you to find even the slightest shred of support. Yet you failed — and you keep failing — to do so.
Thus, the conclusion is unavoidable at this point: you simply don't have any idea about any of this. You're just trolling.
But thats not how it works...
You cant acuse a company of fraude and then not back it up because there are rules and fines to apply by the co
According to you, that's exactly how it works
You made a claim. Now you have to support it. Until you do, I can only conclude that what you said is unsupported nonsense.
So make up your mind: do you stand by your claim, or are you just trolling? Those are your only two options.
Last edited:
Quite.
I once mighty thread of argument and rebuttal. Cut and thrust, parry and riposte... now reduced to "I'm not, you are..."
Anyone know the release date for 2.6 or Sq 42... I get the feeling both will be released before we get back to any decent discussion in here
Anyone know the release date for 2.6 or Sq 42... I get the feeling both will be released before we get back to any decent discussion in here
Rumours would suggest somewhere around CitizenCon, so… yeah. Long before that unlikely event.I once mighty thread of argument and rebuttal. Cut and thrust, parry and riposte... now reduced to "I'm not, you are..."
Anyone know the release date for 2.6 or Sq 42... I get the feeling both will be released before we get back to any decent discussion in here
Again... Not how it works ; )
When you acuse a company of commiting fraude you need facts to back it up because Kickstarter has rules of engagement to deal with said frauds and companies doing so. They have not. So expect a forum John Doe or its attourney (with a history of bollockery) to be called out when said claims are done. And this ends here until said claims are prooved. Right here. Untill then, its all a big round 0.
I wonder if the 2.6's Star Marine will be a standalone module or is there supposed to be an integration into the rest of tech demo.
I think if you take a cursory look thru the FD forum you will see your fair share of criticism of ED, including from myself. SC on the other hand is definitely cultish in its adoration of the game and their "Dear Leader", any criticism is seized upon as treachery and stamped on straight away. Apples and oranges I`m afraid.
Last edited:
Do I have to post that apples ≈ oranges report again?
Anyway, yes, that whole vociferous, aggressive, and even outright physically hostile treatment of critics is one thing that really makes SC quite exceptional. It's rather worrisome to think what will happen if it is suddenly turned inwards…
Make up your mind. Do you or do you not need to offer any kind of proof to support to your claims? First you say that you do, but when pressed for said proof, you suddenly say that you don't. Which is it?
…but that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about the claims you made — the ones you must support. The ones you have failed to support. The claims that we can now safely dismiss as trolling nonsense.
Last edited:
Ian Phillips
Volunteer Moderator
Stop this please.
Anyone know the release date for 2.6 or Sq 42... I get the feeling both will be released before we get back to any decent discussion in here
Somewhat seriously: Nope. Thats also cig's stance on the 'SQ42 is delayed' thing. They claim it hasnt been delayed, which is technically true as it doesnt have a release date at all. Its not delayed, its just going to be released at a later point in time than originally anticipated.
didn't it say 2016 on the add somewhere?
Doesn't really matter what it said.
We just have to wait until CR refactors reality
Last edited:
It did say '2016' on the SQ42 website, but it didnt say that was the release date.
It was presented by CR when the new roadmap was presented, following the failure of the previous one. And as the SC boys here already argued strongly, there is a difference between presenting the roadmap and saying SQ42 would be released in 2016, and saying the release date is 2016. I am not entirely sure what the difference is, but they sounded very convinced of it.- Status