Rolanbek

WayTools_Support said:

The many, long, stay-on-message posts, before and after our observation, illustrate the opposition PR activity pretty well.

When it’s pointed out, 

it gets more strident 

,personally abusive, 

That’s to deflect, confuse, and deny what they’re doing.

It’s pretty much 

what you’d expect whenever contrivances and contradictions are called out.

No elaborate conspiracy.

 It’s just a gig, for folks in that business.

They make narrative.

We make technology.

 No one who buys their product, will buy ours.

That sorts out fine.

Well not really. If you are happy to throw away customers because you keep making unproven claims about existing customers... oh wait. That's what you've been doing for years. Isn't it about time you actually assessed what cost of this ridiculous vendetta is. You flinging aside custom out of unbridled paranoia does not get me my keyboard any faster. 

Anyway I have a warranty question...

R

dabigkahuna said:

>You do not need to disagree with every comment all to be able to delay and disrupt any comments.

Wow, so suddenly any disagreement is something for you to use to claim disruption. Well, too bad. You don’t get to say anything you want, unchallenged. 

Wow

Argument By Emotive Language. For [redacted] nothing is ever a comment, it is an attack. There are no counterarguments only 'games' or 'Tactics'. No banned users only 'critics'. People who do not share his point of view are 'opponents' and those if people happen to agree they must be 'conspiring'. The use of emotive terms is a fallacious piece of argument as it seeks to argue based on feeling rather than facts.

so suddenly

any disagreement is something for you to use to claim disruption

"Well, too bad. You don’t get to say anything you want, unchallenged."

Delicious! Ding negative assertion.

This is a [redacted] favourite, the negative assertion. He will make a claim in the negative ('there is no','you can't') in an attempt to shift the burden of proof to you. He will insist either that you should have to disprove his assertion because is should be easy for you, or that you are ethically obligated to make his argument for him. No need to waste your time on this he has admitted that he knows a negative claim cannot be proven except via exhaustion (the demonstration of the proof via argumentation of all possibilities) so unless he shows that exhaustive proof, you can ignore it. Be warned, he will repeatedly assert his negative claim as fact, possibly to goad you into being drawn into argumentation, just Ding it and link back here.

 Notice especially he fail to be make a specific enough claim:

• Who challenges?
• Does it have to be him?
• does the challenge have to be public or can he harass you in PM's and count it?
• does that challenge have to vest, does it merely have to be possible? 
• etc. 

None of which matters. 

If they don't like the parts of their posts I'm addressing, maybe they should have left out such things.

Their choice to make.

I know this is at Smurf but if the studio audience will indulge me on this:

If they don't like the parts of their posts I'm addressing

Not the issue, they like their posts, possibly Shame Shame shame, but let's check it's not just a mistake by DBK.

If you meant "If they don't like me addressing parts of their post.." then that makes more sense in context. 

Moving on. 

maybe they should have left out such things.

So maybe they should leave out the things you don't agree with? Maybe, and this is opinion here, you are offering an ultimatum with this statement?

If you only post things I (DBK) agree with I will not comment on you post pointing out at length my (DBK's) disagreements.

Their choice to make.

To the last, I grapple with thee; From Hell's heart, I stab at thee; For hate's sake, I spit my last breath at thee.

Because that's normal.

R

edit: changed a word. 

Is this the right room for an argument...?

Any room with DBK in it....

You said I was being used to "delay and disrupt ANY [emphasis added] negative comments. Which is clearly impossible when I've agreed with a number of them.

You can throw out an old saying, but it doesn't change the fact that you were wrong.

Which pretty much is what you do throughout your post so this is a good enough example for almost all the rest you wrote.

Threads by their very nature are linear. You do not need to disagree with every comment all to be able to delay and disrupt any comments. Quite obviously there is enough disruption here with you agreeing with some and arguing with most points. Giving you the benefit of the most generous definition, the smallest majority that 'most' could be is 51%, so label on your tin states now only 51% percent argumentative twaddle which is a great victory for you, as that mean rather than nearly a quarter of all the comments and half of all the words in this thread being yours it could have been 40% of the posts and two thirds of the verbiage. 

I'm not only right that you claiming one iota of balance is not supported by the evidence of our own eyes, but you claiming that and manner in which you argued it is so flawed as to be laughable. 

You can be disruptive and delaying without agreeing or disagreeing with any post, If you responded with 5000 word essay on cats to every or even 51% of posts that would achieve both delay and disruption. So that amount of agreements and disagreements is at this point irrelevant.

 Apples to Oranges. 

I can see as you are trying to disengage from my points rather than argue them I'll take the win.

Show me oh White knight of the AI forums, where you defended me, specifically me, here, in this thread. There are over 100 posts here. Surely you managed to come up with some defence for a customer getting bullied by multi million dollar company? 

Or concede the point. 

R

Maybe because I was responding to YOUR comment where you said, "They seem comfortable in using him to delay and disrupt any negative comments"

So, since I was agreeing with some negative comments, you statement is weird.

Still nope. It is not weird if you agree with some comments. 

So if I don't agree with all (or even "most") criticisms, it means "any"?

Nope, Shame, shame, shame a strawman. Some is a smaller component than most. If you agree with some you disagree with most. "Any" is just phew stinky a red herring you threw in. 

 Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

Agree, it does not work the way you described. It works the way I described. 

In response to my saying it IS my fight, you respond:

And also more. but do carry on, how where are you going to go with this one. 

Since I already explained why it is my fight, 

No you simply stated it. 

you are wrong.

Nope. REEEEEEEEE argument by assertion.

 It has nothing to do with being a shareholder, employee, or anything else relating to WT specifically.

Well yes really does, that determines whether you are an official source of information or perhaps someone who has invested in the company and gains a benefit in taking up this fight. Otherwise you are a bystander who is interjecting themselves between customers and their supplier. You are literally interfering in a contractual relationship between two parties. You do not have a pallet of textblades to check whether they are finished or not. You don't ship Textblades, You don't even have one of your own. You have a (possibly two counting that old one) prototype, with the old firmware, which is owned by Waytools. 

 You don't get a vote on what I decide is my fight. 

No one is casting votes here, this isn't a discussion. You are not WayTools. If you would like to run along and get WayTools there some customers of theirs who would like some answers regarding a product they claim to produce. You can decide whatever you like, but it doesn't make your decision matter. 

I don't consider you a victim. I saw what you were saying too from 2015.

So in your mind WayTools can make whatever stuff up they like about me? Nice to know where we stand. 

 But, as it happens, I defended - in a broad sense (not just you, but people with the same complaint in general) directly to Mark. 

Is that so? 

But just on some specific stuff just the other day. Not everything. 

Which stuff? The conspiracy claims? The lies about MR? The lies about the financial transaction? The constant slurs? because you were pretty publicly quiet about it. 

Same as I do in defending WT.

Oh no, that's simply not true. You did not defend me in public from them. But you defend them in public all the time. Where is your post which says: "No Waytools you are wrong Rolanbek didn't attack Juil on MR, I know because I was there." then? I don't see it. 

Nope, I don't see it anywhere on here. 

 And I've made similar points publicly in the past. And I did on it on EXACTLY the same basis that I defend WT from some accusations.

Show me oh White knight of the AI forums, where you defended me, specifically me, here, in this thread. There are over 100 posts here. Surely you managed to come up with some defence for a customer getting bullied by multi million dollar company? 

Oh yes, I remember you can't empathise because you "I don't consider you a victim.". 

So much for DBK defender of truth, fairness and decency. Because even given the evidence of you own eyes back in 2016, you just let WT away with their slanderous comments. Is that fair? Is that decent? because you know it what they said was not true. And I know as well. My conscience is clear regarding that article, and my interactions with the editor and with the moderation team. 

Shame on you pal, shame on you. 

Did you stop to ask where the hell Mr. "my name is make and I make the textblade" was during that whole mess? Because I don't remember any WT posting while I was there, no calls for calm, no vigorous defence of juli. just silence. 

R

mp5000 said: