Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Do not give this project any more money.
This discussion has been closed.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Comments
And here is a prime example. I am not dodging anything.
I did not give any evidence, I made a statement. Do you understand the difference between those 2 things?
You declared my statement as being wrong even without asking for evidence, if you don't understand why that is a problem then I honestly don't know what to say.
I did ask you to stop responding to me.... I would really appreciate it if you would do that.
ConstantineMerus said >>> Then you're just a forum warrior looking for your 15-minutes of fame, not even a good version of fame. Another pointless whimper. >>>
Dear ConstantineMerus,
Our OP has a recurring behaviour .... trying to get in another thread or three before he gets himself banned (again). And he considers these bans - according to his own words - "badges of honor".
Have fun
Wa min God! Se æx on min heafod is!
If you're a prisoner to your conscience, then why wouldn't you do more research and actually create an objective argument? What's problematic is that you're making unsupported claims from a stance that is not objective.... at all!! Regardless of your education, you're not being objective. There are plenty of people who are extremely educated on subjects which cannot be discussed here, making claims that are all but scientifically-proven to be inaccurate, yet millions still believe. So while I appreciate your snakeoil, I think I'll bide my time and see how things go. Unfortunately, you think you're helping things, but you're actually contributing to the problem. THAT'S why you get banned, not because you're being a positive contributor.
Why don't you actually go and find the evidence. With the vast number of people apparently getting refunds, there must be a plethora of it out there. Oh? There isn't? Huh!!! Cuz last I heard there was a formal investigation by the DCBA, but that was over a year ago now and..... crickets!!
I have no problems with being making arguments on a subject, but don't act like you're being objective when you are only presenting a single-sided view. That's literally the opposite of what objective means.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
They also learn from getting burnt, and this year he plays safe, locks dates to the production report: https://robertsspaceindustries.com/schedule-report and even admitted the possibility of SQ42 sliding to next year.
Better this way.
3.0 is meant to be containing a host of gameplay and yet Brian Chambers is saying they are just starting to put together a gameplay team (Feb 27) 17mins 5secs
3.0 is meant to have the cargo system in place, yet Will Maiden (who is in charge of the cargo system) is saying they are still designing and prototyping it -
https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/5wpgmv/more_dev_comments_from_spectrum_general_chat/
The room system is an essential part of 3.0 but it is still under development by the LA team - "This will likely have a dependency on the 'room system' being developed in LA...." https://forums.robertsspaceindustries.com/discussion/comment/7516129/#Comment_7516129
If this stuff is nowhere near completion now how could Roberts realistically claim that it was going to be ready for last December.
Ill just pull out the popcorn and watch the forum pvp as it almost as good as the upcoming march madness, but not quite.
All my opinions are just that..opinions. If you like my opinions..coolness.If you dont like my opinion....I really dont care.
Playing: ESO, WOT, Smite, and Marvel Heroes
Because you can't claim CR lied without claiming they all purposedly lied.
Yes, they're all on a various spectrum or continuum of dishonesty.
I am not being dishonest. CIG has enough money, more than they said they needed. Give CIG no more money without a finished product!
Your argument is that they were not working towards a late-year release of 3.0 and knew that when it was announced?
Maybe they actually were? Hell I can't tell anymore. CR has been proven to be such a big blowhard you can't blame anyone for not knowing his true intentions.
Bartoni's Law definition: As an Internet discussion grows volatile, the probability of a comparison involving Donald Trump approaches 1.
All I see is you trying to deflect by answering a question with a question.
LOL
You didn't even like how I caught out Erillion's argument on page 1 about reneging on "limited availability spaceship.jpgs". It's like you're being lied to so much, all over, you're not even seeing it fly by your eyes.
And what shocker would that be?
2.6 itself was meant months before it released, and even when it released they are still today, 3 months after, doing the 2.6.2 to implement features/tech that was to be delivered within the main update.
At this point all I can say for sure is that CR needs to step away from the lead role and keep his gob shut.
Bartoni's Law definition: As an Internet discussion grows volatile, the probability of a comparison involving Donald Trump approaches 1.
LOL. Yes of course, he thought they could do stuff (which remains in its intial stages 7 months later) in just 3 months, as well as testing it all before rolling it out to backers. Oh man.... most of us were not born yesterday.
2.6.2 is an intermediary to take the sting off not delivering (or even speaking about) 3.0.
There's even talk of bringing 2.7 back into play so that people don't get restless and start wondering what the hell CIG is doing and where the hell 3.0 has disappeared to.
And put 3.0 on the production schedule.
Maybe you'll get away with saying such things. You're not me.
About as much chance of seeing the above as we have of getting a real date from Chris Roberts....
Bartoni's Law definition: As an Internet discussion grows volatile, the probability of a comparison involving Donald Trump approaches 1.