Steve Buscemi Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 (edited) Or was it Hoo that was lying? These logs prove nothing... If Hoo's logs prove nothing then the possibly faked ones prove nothing as well. Why is TOP trying to rally support for it's defense of IRON with logs that "prove nothing"? Seems you are trying to use logs only when convenient. The truthfulness of them doesn't really matter to TOP I guess. Edited December 31, 2009 by Steve Buscemi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xiphosis Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 The only part Hoo denied was the 'drive them off Bob' part. I really can't believe he admits to saying the rest of it. He only denies one line... but you don't believe he admits to the rest? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Warbuck Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 they were in the original, but not in the fakes that were passed around.edit: Also, Hoo admits to the rest of the logs, why would he care to lie about one of them? You for real? Of course a WHOIS of me wouldn't be in the logs on my side. Sometimes I marvel at the advancements our species make in their level of intellect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoFish Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 This is indeed the only thing i think anyone rational could conclude . From reading this all i can see is a typical case of "you're lying! No you are!" . And whether someone chooses to believe A or B will depend on their trust/faith towards A or B. Sure, but the evidence seems to support Hoo and Warbucks was just called out as a liar a day or two ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CptGodzilla Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 A "gotcha" moment in hopes it will demoralize the enemy and persuade possible fence sitters.My guess is however that fence sitters will remain so, there is necessarily no hard evidence on either side, this is a typical he-said-she-said. Hoo has no motive to debate 1 line in a set of logs he otherwise admits to ADI just recently had a falling out with RoK (a few days ago) and these logs have been floating around for a few days. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earogema Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 (edited) Let's assume for a second that it's always a moral wrong to reveal private logs without asking the other parties involved. Are you saying that just because someone possesses this character flaw, it automatically casts doubt on the validity of the logs in question? Er...I'm pretty sure that's precisely what he was implying, yeah. If a person breaks an objective moral standard, then he has a greater chance of breaking others. Obviously he had something to gain here, so doctoring the logs isn't that odd. Edited December 31, 2009 by Earogema Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canik Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 they were in the original, but not in the fakes that were passed around.edit: Also, Hoo admits to the rest of the logs, why would he care to lie about one of them? Yeah because those lines really change the context of what VanHoo said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigwoody Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 Hoo has no motive to debate 1 line in a set of logs he otherwise admits toADI just recently had a falling out with RoK (a few days ago) and these logs have been floating around for a few days. When its a critical line, its a shrewd move to call foul in the hopes of winning a PR point. I have no idea if Hoo is lying or not, but a motive to does exist. The same motive really to post if he is telling the truth as well. Hence debating motive won't get us anywhere. (Nothing will, its just a question of how long the wagon circling lasts) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
von Metternich Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 La_Famzy[RoK]> no <ss23[ADI]> ya <La_Famzy[RoK]> no <ss23[ADI]> ya <La_Famzy[RoK]> no =-= YOU (La_Famzy[RoK]) have been booted from #adi by ss23[ADI] (YA) -->| YOU (La_Famzy[RoK]) have joined #adi <La_Famzy[RoK]> no See how we handle arguments? Can't you guys do it the same way? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xiphosis Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 Are you saying that just because someone possesses this character flaw, it automatically casts doubt on the validity of the logs in question? It's not a stretch to say someone that would pass around logs to smear an ally would be capable of faking them as well, especially when their best excuse is that someone hacked their computer and edited them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomcat Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 [19:19:54] VanHooIII[RoK]But IRON, CDT, and TPF are from a different era ... an era of NPO rule that theymiss[19:20:09] VanHooIII[RoK]They are a group of toadies who gained power by sucking up to the NPO [19:20:21] VanHooIII[RoK]With the NPO gone, they are suffering for past sins [19:20:33] VanHooIII[RoK]And have no learned that this is a new world and their ways no longer fly [19:20:59] VanHooIII[RoK]not* [19:21:38] VanHooIII[RoK] and they need to leave the game I'm going to have to agree with Canik here. This last sentence "and they need to leave the game" just doesn't flow with the rest of the conversation. Not only does it not sound like something VanHoo would say, but it just simply looks out of place. It totally comes out of left field. That Warbud was initially pretending to be interested in who could have edited his logs, leads me to believe that Warbud might have believed that the cat was already out of the bag that the logs were faked and so he needed to search for somebody to blame. But then, when he realized VH had no solid proof yet that the logs were faked, he backpedaled and started claiming the logs were authentic. The whole thing just smells fishy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canik Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 It's not a stretch to say someone that would pass around logs to smear an ally would be capable of faking them as well, especially when their best excuse is that someone hacked their computer and edited them. No, they're best excuse if that Hoo is full of it. Warbuck was just too nice to say it, still wanting to be cool with RoK b/c they are Aqua. So he thought of the only other possible solution, because he knew he didn't fake them. Also, he didn't pass them around to smear an ally. First of all, RoK wasn't an ally at that point. Secondly, you know all you gotta do is show logs like that to 1 person and it's gonna be everywhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fantastico Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 Or was it Hoo that was lying? These logs prove nothing... Given Warbucks' reaction throughout his thread yesterday where I actually tried to empathize with him and now with his "zomg I was haxxored" defense, I'm disagreeing with you. Nothing personal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lincongrad Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 See how we handle arguments? Can't you guys do it the same way? Wait, you're saying that's not how the OWF handles arguments? You may want to get your eyes checked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoFish Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 No, they're best excuse if that Hoo is full of it. Warbuck was just too nice to say it, still wanting to be cool with RoK b/c they are Aqua. So he thought of the only other possible solution, because he knew he didn't fake them. If the logs were legit, why would Hoo be confronting him about it to begin with? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kindom of Goon Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 Let's assume for a second that it's always a moral wrong to reveal private logs without asking the other parties involved. Are you saying that just because someone possesses this character flaw, it automatically casts doubt on the validity of the logs in question? No I say it casts doubt over the validity of their word as they've already proven they cannot be trusted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
von Metternich Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 Wait, you're saying that's not how the OWF handles arguments?You may want to get your eyes checked. Thats how we should hanlde IRC arguments. * VanHooIII[RoK]> Fake logs are fakeWarbuck[ADI]> No VanHooIII[RoK]> Ya Warbuck[ADI]> No VanHooIII[RoK]> Ya Warbuck[ADI]> No VanHooIII[RoK]> Ya Warbuck[ADI]> No *Fake logs are fake. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canik Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 If the logs were legit, why would Hoo be confronting him about it to begin with? Uh, I don't know NoFish. Hmm, let's reflect on that for a minute... why would Hoo want to deny that he was trying to push people out of the game? Hrmmm... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acca Dacca Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 The whole thing just smells fishy. Thats Famzy. We forgot to walk him again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earogema Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 (edited) You know, if there are so many logs of Hoo going around, why doesn't somebody just come forward and show us one where Hoo admits to trying to force out another alliance from the game? You know, just one other instance would be sufficient. Edited December 31, 2009 by Earogema Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acca Dacca Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 VanHooIII[RoK]> Duck Season Warbuck[ADI]> Wabbit Season VanHooIII[RoK]> Duck Season Warbuck[ADI]> Wabbit Season VanHooIII[RoK]> Duck Season Warbuck[ADI]> Wabbit Season VanHooIII[RoK]> Wabbit Season! Warbuck[ADI]> Duck Season FIRE Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rafael Nadal Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 (edited) For information sake, what irc client does Warbuck use? Edited December 31, 2009 by Rafael Nadal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoFish Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 (edited) Uh, I don't know NoFish. Hmm, let's reflect on that for a minute... why would Hoo want to deny that he was trying to push people out of the game? Hrmmm... That's why he would call him on it on the OWF. But in private? He wouldn't convince Warbuck of anything, he wouldn't learn anything, it'd just be pointless. The rational reasoning is that Hoo didn't know that Warbuck faked them and wanted to see if they were changed by him, or further down the line. Edited December 31, 2009 by NoFish Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Ultimate 747 Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 (edited) Er...I'm pretty sure that's precisely what he was implying, yeah. If a person breaks an objective moral standard, then he has a greater chance of breaking others. Obviously he had something to gain here, so doctoring the logs isn't that odd. I edited my post right after to try and make it a little more clear what I was saying, but I'll elaborate here as well. The point is, if he leaked the logs, assuming they were real, all that means is that Hoo had given him a potent PR weapon and he wanted to use it. Call it what you will, I'd say any wrong there is considerably less significant than the kind of low morals it takes to doctor it. In other words, smearing with truth isn't nearly as bad as smearing with lies. So how can you say that just because someone does the first, they are necessarily likely to be involved in the second? Edited December 31, 2009 by Khrushchev Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
von Metternich Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 For information sake, what irc client does Warbuck use? I'm pretty sure its mIRC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.