CuChulainnWD
-
Posts
1,110 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by CuChulainnWD
-
-
5 minutes ago, Sorin200 said:
I can`t finish Veilbreaker quest because jetpack is not working. Anyone else have this problem?
I am having the same problem. I was wondering if it was a key bind issue, but nope.
-
1
-
-
@[DE]DanielleWhy aren't discount coupons on PC recognised for Aya Prime Resurgance package purchases?
-
His name is Limbo.... the end.
-
7 hours ago, Tsoe said:
maybe that imply new war gonna come earlier?
7 hours ago, Tsoe said:I would not hold my breath.
-
@[DE]MeganWelp, before this update I had a fully maxed out grid with a node filled with an avionic as required. With this mod based plexus, I can slip in 5 fully maxed mods. Sorry DE but that is not good enough. Those polarities should be universal just as the grid was, and the time spent upgrading the grid should be the same for everyone that maxed out the avionics grid. 2 steps forward 5 back. Why should we spend forma on a system that previously did not require anyone to spend more grind time to get forma or spend plat to updgade a system that worked perfectly well?
-
25
-
-
On 2021-01-18 at 12:47 PM, M0deRa1n said:
I guess this is how my time spent is valued
What!? Were you not entertained? /s
-
1
-
-
I have been getting a skewed distortion divide line through my screen when in motion, (Screen Tearing) panning the camera or bullet jumping. Every movement cause the distortion to move down the screen, top to bottom. It is like the image is folded in on itself at the divide line. Motion blur switched off Vsync switch off. Classic or Beta engine, this motion blur occurs.
-
Just now, Swagernator22663 said:
Wait the ship does not even have new interior ? Talk about wasted effort.
You do realise Nora's ship is a landing craft, not the orbiter?
-
1
-
-
Just now, TARINunit9 said:
Sarge isn't a world boss, that's why OP wants to keep him at 4.5k
Just now, TARINunit9 said:Sarge isn't a world boss, that's why OP wants to keep him at 4.5k
Just now, TARINunit9 said:Sarge isn't a world boss, that's why OP wants to keep him at 4.5k
Psst hate to break it to you but ole Sarge is a world boss, who happens to drop Mag parts. Is he a difficult world boss? Nope. I get what OP wants, but given the current system, fight smarter not harder.
-
The Sergeant Iliad Phobos 0.000001 seconds TTK.... The End. 10K? Nah mate 7K is more than enough.
-
3 hours ago, WhiteMarker said:
You sure you killed a Thrall and not just a Larveling?
That is a good point. Thanks, I have not hunted a lich in so long.
-
Just completed my mission on Adaro to kill a Kuva Thrall. The kill did not get registered with the Nightwave act.
Also if we are making Thralls a part of the nightwave experience, perhaps it is time to rethink the option to be able to get rid of an unwanted Lich? -
44 minutes ago, DeMonkey said:
Please, do go on about how you have nothing but ad hominem.
*So let me get this right Monkey, What is good for me is not good for thee by your rules? Yes conjecture but certainly seems that way based on your behaviour.
Hmm I thought Ad Hominem was attacking their character. Suggesting someones behaviour is akin to something is not ad hominem. Or correct me if I am wrong your wobbly Toddler remark was that an observation of behaviour, or ad hominem? Me saying you are behaving in a pedantic manner is not saying you are pedantic, as is you saying I appeared to be pitching a fit is saying I pitched a fit. I don't really care, just pointing out you being the pot calling the kettle black.
QuoteWhy are you constantly making out that I want everyone to be able to see it?
*I never said everyone would see it monkey, you have been belabouring this whole conversation on the premise that someone reading this thread would skip over the video, that is a hasty generalisation. Just because you have experienced X for an X amount of time, does not mean it is true for the sum of the parts of X does it? It is just your humble opinion based on a small data set. I conceded I do not expect some people to view the video as I concede not everyone would be bothered if I wrote a transcript for it. You are the one nit picking the details. I accept it and concede it. That is not what is important to me. The accuracy and the validity of the content in the video is what I am concerned with and you are not. Oh well, shame for you or not. I do not care about your view. You do not get that.Where have I put emphasis on wanting EVERYONE to see the thread, read your information and learn?
I mean, I've been pretty clear. Someone reading the thread is unlikely to go through your entire video and then return to the thread. A text format detailing the important parts and time stamping or linking to sources would be much simpler.
*Again that is your opinion based on hasty generalisation.No... no...
The simplest things are just lost on you... I was not referring to you as a person as fallacious, just the line of argument you were going down.
Mate I was not making an argument at that point. That is your fallacious interpretation to a genuine question I asked you. Not everything is an attack or argument. Sometimes genuine questions do crop up. That is reality and being a human being.I've already clarified what I don't care about, and what I do.
By all means though, continue to twist my words.
I'll take "projection" for 400, Alex.
*Wow mate, I know you have an Ego, but you may want to reign it in a wee bit.Disagree. Grand, it is still a hasty generalisation. People often claim X to be true based on their observation in their local area. Yet fail to realise the big picture, which then tends to disprove their claim or observation. Sure I accept you think you see a sizeable number of people that xy or z are saying xy or z but it still may not be applied to the general viewer ship at large than can not be bothered to comment. Sorry, you sir are incorrect.
It's your assumption that I view a "limited" amount of threads.
*Not an assumption it is a statistical fact. Otherwise you would not have people bemoaning Steam chart threads being a key indicator to the health of Warframe's player base when not factoring in how console players direct launcher players etc weigh in on the matter. You do not have all of the data to make an accurate analysis or big picture.On the contrary, the threads in question tend to blow up quite rapidly and I see quite a few of them. Certainly enough to come to the conclusion that video dumps are viewed negatively. And tend to be populated by many of the same people, with some new ones tossed into the mix every big update.
*It is still a hasty generalisation on your part and you know it.As I said though, you're more than welcome to go looking. The evidence is out there. You can edu ma cate yourself on the matter.
* Sure I can, but we both know I won't just like we both know you won't look at the video's provided. I am Ok with that.Face it Monkey, you were out argued on this one. It has been fun mate. I still think you're an interesting chap. A little disappointed that you will let willful ignorance stand in your way to finding out the Facts from your Fact checking extravaganza because it does not conform to the format you think best suits the forum. That is your opinion mate, and I can appreciate that too just as I can disagree with it. I can also appreciate you just can't be arsed to do so, but ironically be arsed to continue this rather pointless discussion we have been having regardless of how entertaining it has been.
You claim I got hung up on the details when you were not listening to a word I said. So TLDR this for you:
1) Claims made by OP are incorrect
2) I suggested to another commenter that their information is incorrect. They claimed their professor taught them critical thinking skills. I pointed out their view on the matter is not factual, that they might want to rethink their view and find the evidence for themselves. They claim I should provide proof.3) I say the proof is right their for their viewing easy to find, ready made, and easily digestible.
4) You chime in.
5) We argue the points. I figured in good faith, but the entire gist of your argument is that you care enough that I see the light of your wisdom, that my evidence is garbage and would be glossed over, the format is not such that it would garner the traffic you think it would if it met your standards based on your experience.
*6) I disagree with you, shots fired both sides, pedantic conversation ensues. Fee Fees are hurt.
*7) Conclusion. You're sticking to your guns that you are right. I point out your argument is complete Hasty Generalisation. You do not have sufficient evidence and the complete big picture to ascertain the forums viewership. I argue it does not really matter. Even though you dismissed my evidence out of hand, "Garbage", because it did not meet your evidence presentation criteria. I can accept that and know the information to be true based on reality.
*Not everyone is going to be happy with how something is presented if it was by text, vid or telepathy if it existed. My point is, the information and evidence as pertaining to OP's discussion is valid, and concrete. It does not matter one jot if some people are not interested in it or will look at it. Only that the people that are interested in informing themselves will look at it, and form their own opinions. You fact checking or wanting fact checking is irrelevant. Freedom of speech should exist up and unto the point it incites violence. That is a different ball game.Monkey mate, it has been fun. Sorry to you and your employer for wasting our time for not being as productive as you might have been in your labours. I lost a little sleep. No biggy. It was enjoyable chatting with you through the wee hours of the morning. You lost this one mate. That is Ok. Don't lose any sleep over it. I look forward to watching you stick your nose into other peoples disussions to school them on pedantic matters that do not relate directly to the conversations at hand. They really are entertaining. It is 0800 now. I really should sleep.
Quote
-
Just now, DeMonkey said:
I never said I was offended.
You don't need to be insulted or offended to recognise something is insulting or offensive, it just requires a basic amount of objectivity.
My skin is quite thick, of that I can assure you. A toddlers behaviour is still recognisably a toddlers behaviour however no matter how thick one's skin may be.
Not all ad hominem is an "attack", but it is fallacious.
Probably the saddest thing about this entire debate.
No no, I wouldn't read it even if you had made a shorter form of it. I genuinely care that little about it.
As I've said, I'm interested in you presenting it in a more digestible manner for the benefit of everyone you want to impart the knowledge on, and doing so in the future as well.
I'm sorry you have quite gotten that yet.
I am sorry you feel you have sufficient knowledge to ascertain that anyone that is genuinely interested in the subject matter provided would be dismissive of the format it is provided in. You have this hollier than though attitude, as evidenced by your language and behaviour that has you thinking you are more correct than anyone else when you choose to engage in argument, because Monkey knows best.
Monkey, did it ever occur to you that those that wish to absorb the information will or they won't. Many do not let inhibitions based on format stop them from gaining the information one way or another? Do you not see the pedantic nature of your argument? The information is there to be had, whether it is text or in video form, it would not satisfy everyone? Perhaps those that are interested are the ones that will labour through the excruciating chore of pressing a button to watch a video that we both know takes less effort to execute and absorb than reading. Don't get me wrong I love reading too. But we both know text does not convey information as well or efficiently as audiovisual for many subjects. This is one of them.
If me asking you what is your interest or disinterest is false to you, then you really do have a poor judge of character. Sometimes people do really wanna know why people are motivated to do things. Your claim you do not care is a lie based on the evidence that you would labour all this time to win a debate in your own words I believe you find to be pointless? The why bother?Sounds to me like you are feeling threatened. Based on the language, context and structure of your words. You did say you have a thicker skin. Were we not having a discussion, regardless how heated you feel things may have become?
Monkey, I appreciate your concern that my information may not get out to everyone. Let's be honest mate. YOU know it will not get out to everyone. I know that. It is ridiculous to think it would. You however are not the arbiter or have sufficient knowledge know matter how much visual evidence you claim to have in your limited view of how much traffic passes through this Forum or is commented on, is sufficient to make an accurate guess never mind an educated one. Is that not a Hasty Generalisation? -
10 minutes ago, DeMonkey said:
That's very unfortunate.
You're welcome to look up the definition of ad hominem if it pleases you, but it extends to any argument that isn't aimed at my own argument, but is instead aimed at me as a person. Be it my reason for posting, a personal attribute or otherwise.
I don't get news, as a general rule. I simply don't care for it.
I see funny tweet, I make haha.
Not really, I drew comparisons between yourself and a stroppy toddler, and thus determined that you too were throwing a strop.
You could claim to be laughing your arse off, certainly, but humans are relatively simple. Your increasing aggression, use of vulgarity and name calling are all evidence of someone chucking a wobbly.
You're welcome to your opinion.
Yes, it is. Re-read my first post to you. That's exactly my point. Whether the information actually gets out to people.
Psst infer all you like, does not make it true. If it helps you to get through your day to think I chucked a wobbly because I used some colourful and I must say pretty tame language, you do need to grow a thicker skin.
Me asking you why you are so bothered about this discussion is not a form of attack and certainly not my intent. If that is how you wish to interpret it, that is on you. That is your opinion. You are welcome to it. Unlike you I can interpret the difference of you inferring my behaviour to be like that of a "Toddler" and actually being called a Toddler. It is no skin off my nose either way.
The information both of us have discussed will or will not get out to people if they chose to look at it Monkey, you are being obtuse and pedantic again mate. I know not EVERYONE is going to either read or watch the video. Not everyone reading this thread may or may not care to read our discussion either.
I am glad you are concerned for how I chose to provide my evidence. I am satisfied with how I provided the evidence. Either people look at it or they don't. Just like they might or might not read the nonexistent hypothetical transcript YOU want. That too maybe discarded, glossed over or overlooked. It is moot. That is my point.
My exact point to YOU is you are being willfully ignorant. That is on you. That is the crying shame. I can not FORCE you to read or watch anything I recommended. Yet you insist you can't or won't because it is not in a format YOU like.? Correct me if I am wrong please. Oh well. Other than the fact we had this lovely discussion I can not force you to change your views as like you said it is a matter of "Opinion" in this case and no amount of fact checking will correct that will it? -
17 minutes ago, DeMonkey said:
Does it matter?
I hope you realise that ad hominem extends to attacking my motive for arguing. I'll politely remind you of that before you get too invested in this avenue.
I sure do. Not sure how me enjoying an argument has anything to do with you throwing a strop, but sure.
When I make that claim, I'm referring to your increasingly aggressive tone and name calling.
Er, no. The evidence exists, I know it exists. It's up to you to go find it and choose whether to believe it or not.
I mean, are you not capable of citing sources? Relevant quote + timestamp? Links to the articles in the video itself with a highlighted screenshot of the relevant text?
Then, to put it bluntly, butt out.
What, you think I read American news? I don't even read my own country's news, why would I read another's?
What if, hypothetically, it were his own personal tweets I found amusing? Not that it's any of your business still.
To which I responded, "it won't happen". That's not caring about Trump, as you would make out, that's me saying it won't affect the game.
If you really want me to repeat it, sure.
The video you posted will be overlooked by a number of people, and your information would be more visible if presented in a more succinct and digestible manner. Telling people to go and find out for themselves is an immediate fail.
Well monkey I do not recall name calling you, but if I did I do apologies. That said I do recall calling. your actions into question. It is my style of debating. Since when is asking about your motivation has anything to do with ad hominem?Since when is asking questions attacking someone? I thought you had thicker skin than that? It is a genuine interest. Is that you expanding the goal posts of the definition Monkey? I think it is, you cheeky Monkey, ooops now that is an Ad hominem right? You interjected yourself into the conversation demanding something of me that I told you can not be provided in a manner satisfactory to you. You chose to go down this path as much as I. We are both guilty. I just wish to know what you are getting out of all this.
I do not know where you get your news. That is why I asked. Where do you get your information from to form the ill informed opinions you have on this subject? I did not assume you got it from US news outlets, that is your inference applied on me.
You claiming I got into a strop because I use language that offends your sensibilities is again an assumption on your part Monkey. For all you know I could be laughing my ass off right now. Sorry mind, I can not give you my physical reaction in text format either because it can not be verified, and you would not accept video evidence. Mind to be fair, I would not give it to you anyway.
I disagree that it would be an "Immediate fail" Monkey. That again is your humble opinion based on a very limited data set. You do not know the full forum user traffic, and who would and would not read or view said content. That is your immediate fail right there. Not everyone is going to read this particular thread either. Your point sir is moot. The evidence and information may get out to many people. It may not. It may or may not influence many peoples views. That is not the point. The point is the info is their if people care to look at it.
Also Monkey, take your own advice, you don't want me sticking my nose into what you find funny? Why not take your nose out of this discussion that you have said in your own words, you have no interest in... and care not to learn about. Fair is fair right? -
38 minutes ago, DeMonkey said:
Because your fingers don't work? Maybe your keyboard is broken?
Can't be either of those things because you're still capable of typing, which means you're more than capable of providing the evidence and information yourself.
So yes, you can. This is nonsense.
No, it's very evident based on activity on these very forums.
Someone makes a thread in which the OP is a video? People will demand a text based synopsis. No assumption required, seen it with my own two eyes.
That's very... what's the word? Ah yes.
Pedantic. That's very pedantic of you.
What I may or may not find funny is really none of your business.
And so truth becomes anarchy. Got it.
Who is twisting whose words Monkey?
What is your oar in this discussion anyway? You claim you do not care about Trump other than the memes he might provide you, yet in another post, you say:It's not going to happen.
Trump even seems to have cited Free Speech, which ironically to my understanding is the act that stops the government (him) from stopping the media saying things... Which is what he's angry about.
and
It'll be even more concerning if he manages to get re-elected.Where do you get your information from Monkey? So which is it Monkey? Do you care or do not not care whether Trump is reelected, why he might be reelected? What is your oar in this discussion?
The one who has been nitpicking and scuttling the discussion is you, or are you really arguing in good faith? You claim a strop when I know for fact you enjoy a good argument. So do I. Wonderful, yeah it makes me a hypocrite saying I was going to bed, and ended up spending a lovely early morning arguing with you.
So what is your point in all of this discussion anyway? What are you exactly driving at?
Can you provide me with the evidence of people saying they do not like seeing a video, and back it up with substantial numbers claiming they do not like video information that it makes a huge difference on the majority of forum users intake of said information? Extraordinary claims can be rejected with out extraordinary evidence. Then you have the gull to declare hypocrisy on my part? Is that perhaps asking too much? The info you asked for is too grande in scope, context and detail for me to provide you in a lovely transcript. Again something I said to you in a previous post but you conveniently ignore.
Yes Monkey, me typing out all of the information in the video would be far more work and time consuming for me to provide the holier than though you than just you watching it. The information is there for you to view with just a wait for it... click of one button. Still a more efficient use of both our time. It is not me being Pedantic Monkey, it is me being Practical. Besides the fact, would YOU "Trust" the information I provide you as typed evidence than seeing it directly for yourself? Is that the "Gotcha moment"?
I do not care what you find funny, and yeah I agree it is none of my business. But like you, as you care so much about showing people the error in their thinking or the disjointed view in their world, mate I am giving you the same courtesy. You claim you do not care about Trump yet your words clearly indicate you do. I am saying to you, the feed of information you are getting about the man is skewed, and heavily biased, and you sir have drunk the cool aid of TDS Orange man bad. As evidenced by the Gad Saad video I so kindly provided you for your viewing pleasure.
I do not care if you do not like him or not. I just care enough about lil ole you as you do for lil ole me, that I do not have my head up my ass when I am arguing a point. Hate to say it but on this topic, you have your bum as a hat and your noodle is firmly lodged up it.
The whole point of the OP's thread was claiming somehow DE might be affected by the Trump Executive order. Some twisted it further into that Trump would dismantle Twitter and other Social Media platforms. The evidence which I and others provided and in question is that is not the case. Take it or leave it monkey but you are arguing on a subject you know nothing about, care not to inform yourself on when the information has been provided. So tell me Monkey, other than getting your usual kicks, why are you here?And so truth becomes anarchy. Got it. Who is putting words in whose mouth monkey? Is disingenuous the right word? Did you miss the part of a previous post where I cited the scientific method, with peer review, verifiable data, consensus and evidence that can be clearly seen, understood etc is sufficient. Just like I said Fact checking left in the hands of people to decide especially when fact checking OPINIONS is not a good idea? Evidence as you well know can be corroborated and verified and fact checks itself as it is universally becomes accepted and understood as fact. Until such time as it is proved otherwise. Happens all the time in Science doesn't it Monkey? Or is that being Pedantic and disingenuous. We both know how the world really works don't we?
We both know the precise and layman's terms for fact, fact checking evidence and how some facts do not change, as some facts do change. We know the difference right? The world is chaos mate and you know it. We try to add structure to it. It is HOW we go about adding that structure that makes all the difference. Fact checkers ain't one of them. They tend not to be the authority on many of the subjects, as history has demonstrated. I would have more trust in Fact checkers if they were necessary if they were the authority on their respective subjects. In Twitter's, Facebook and Youtubes cases, they are not. -
Hard to watch mid-thread read as well, which is the point. People will skip it and move down to the next post containing text as they follow the thread. That is an assumption on your part. Your preference. Not everyone else. You like to point out one should not speak for everyone. Neither do you.
I am pleased you take pleasure out of memes, So do I. I am sure many others do to. The thing is, some of those memes happen to be inaccurate and spread false information. I do not care so much that the info is false, but that you are aware what you are laughing at maybe false. Which goes back to who should fact check whome? Certainly not I, and certainly not you or anyone for that matter, bots or otherwise. Especially when the information that is being used to fact check is demonstrably false and can be fact checked with facts. What a paradox eh? -
Point of order money :
I believe you are, again, twisting words. I have insisted from the outset for you to provide the evidence in a specific manner for ease of reading.
Of course there is, I keep asking for it.
There must be a reason you won't provide it... it's probably garbage.
For the fifth (?) time, that's clearly not what happened. I didn't ask for evidence, nor did I claim the format was unacceptable after the fact. I have stated this numerous times.
QED dude
Evidence Has been provided. You either accept it or don't. You sir are the hypocrite or a liar? Which is it? I can not give you the evidence in the "specific manner" as you want. It does not exist in that manner. It exists in the manner I provided. Clear as day for you to view.
Do yourself a favour, take the loss.
-
Just now, DeMonkey said:
Now now, for the fourth (?) time now I expressed that you wouldn't win arguments and convince people with your initial posts.
That's not crying like a baby, that's stating a fact. It was and will continue to be missed by posters who are reading the thread, if you don't want that you need to provide the evidence in a better manner.
You're assuming I'm laughing at him about this particular matter?
You need to cut the assumptions out tbh. Respond to what I said, not what you think I said.
For the fifth (?) time, that's clearly not what happened. I didn't ask for evidence, nor did I claim the format was unacceptable after the fact. I have stated this numerous times.
Why are you struggling so much with this?
The constant word twisting, nitpicking and verbal insults really just make you look like a hypocrite.
Wow you really are pedantic aren't you? Whether you're laughing at him for this situation or any other, I am wagering what you are laughing at is probably incorrect information that one would laugh at them for. The information you have gained on Trump has been spun by Mainstream media. I have watched countless Briefings from Trump that CNN likes to take out of context. The Clorox hoax being one. Trump did not suggest people inject clorox. Mind if anyone cared to watch the full video even able to be found on CNN's own website you can clearly hear what the man said for himself. CNN counts on you just eating up their headlines and not listening to the full context for yourself.
You are being pedantic and nitpicky.
I disagree with you, a massive video picture post is hard to miss. People often have the time to watch videos to get content, just like they watch TV or listen to the radio, or browse the internet. Especially seeing as you are in the UK which if I am not mistaken you are from, is under lockdown. Sure you might be an essential worker. If you have the time of day to muck around arguing on the forums, you had the time to watch these vidoes. You are assuming people would not watch them. I don't know about you, but I personally find it easier to consume content in an audio visual format than strictly text, audio, or video.
I really do not understand why you choose to be so willfully ignorant and pedantic on precise details, when you have the cognitive capacity to understand and read between lines and unspoken words because they are unnecessary. You do it all the time with others. -
Just now, CuChulainnWD said:
I made my point monkey. The info you wanted is in the videos myself and another provided. It clearly demonstrates in succinct, cooberating chain of evidence that one can see and hear. You want to cry like a baby because it is not in written format. I can not provide the format you are asking for if it does not exists. But you want to play silly buggers. I could not care less about Trump either. But it does make you look like an ass when you poke fun of someone when what you are poking fun at is incorrect. But yeah context, content and actual facts from the horses mouth do not matter to you.
You would not accept the evidence I provided. Mate, you lost this argument, I know, you do not like to lose arguments, making it point of pride for yourself to out argue or make people look foolish. I know you are not a fan of Trump, nor am I, but I do respect what the man has been doing. He is not perfect no one is. But someone laughing at what they think of an ass who is not, they themselves are the ass.
You sir have made yourself look an ass. Asking people for evidence and they provide it to you, and then claim it is not a format you like is shifting goal posts, it is being willfully ignorant. Also seeing as you care about people so much. When someone wishes to change their mind or are open to learning, they take responsibility to learn for themselves. I gave you the tools dude, what you choose to do with them is up to you. Be ignorant or don't. To claim you do not have time for a video that would clearly explain everything you want to know, give you some perspective, and what is really going on, because you are at work, and then to spend time verbally sparing with me.... wow dude that is a sad excuse.
To put it in simple terms that even a monkey can understand. I cared enough to give you the tools. You are ignorant enough to reject them. You wanted evidence, I told you clearly it is ALL in the video. The context and content is too vast for me to just state my opinion on what is said, as it would be opinion and conjecture. The evidence as presented in said videos is from the horses mouth, but also analysed with corroboration and sited documentation that I personally can not provide you.
I can not physically give it to you, only electronically. The format is video. You choose to reject it. Again that is on you. -
-
Just now, DeMonkey said:
That's a shame isn't it.
Not really. You are choosing to be willfully ignorant. That is a shame. Me providing you with exactly what you asked for, digestible content, sorry it can not be provided in written format, nah. That is you playing silly buggers, being disingenuous, and pedantic. Did I use all those words incorrectly and out of context monkey?
-
Just now, DeMonkey said:
Great, so rather than me watching a video on people I shouldn't trust, why not just provide the information?
Come on, can I make my point any simpler? You do not win arguments by telling people to look things up for themselves, that includes directing people to a video you then expect them to have to follow up on. The burden of proof is on you and you alone. Either provide the information, or you'll never convince anyone.
Again, same goal post, hasn't moved.
Evidence exists where evidence exists. Why do you not want to look at it? It is to the point and makes all points clear. If there is no Paper trail to be provided, but their is photographic evidence. You won't accept the photographic evidence? That is what you are doing. There is no written document that boils it all down in a format that would satisfy you. There is written evidence you can read in a video provided with the linked articles used to demonstrate it. Sorry I am not going to go through all of that to get it for you. I know it is there. I have provided you the means to look for yourself. I have satisfied the burden of proof, you just can't be bothered to look at it.
The Duviri Paradox: Hotfix 33.0.4
in PC Update Notes
Posted
Maybe we have to blow harder. Mind this is not quite as bad as having imminent implosions in space. Ahh the good ole days.