Over 430 threads discussing labyrinth problems with over 1040 posters in support DONE!!!!!

"

Shovelcut wrote:

"

gibbousmoon wrote:

"

Shovelcut wrote:

Mind pointing me to the part of that quote that's an insult? I'm fairly sure I provided a legitimate answer. Thin skinned much?

Sorry Shovelcut, that isn't what we are discussing at this point, so your opinion is completely irrelevant. You obviously aren't paying attention.

See, the difference between our posts is that you're doing it in a child-like manner. My post was just stating a fact.

We were discussing Turtles methods and you come in (twice with that self-quote I might add) and basically imply that we're paranoid for thinking something we weren't even talking about. You considered you didn't get a response the first time cause you were off base with your comment?

We were discussing the handful of people representing almost 700 accounts after this post by me on December 28.

"

turtledove wrote:

"

lagwin1980 wrote:

"680" posters...have you went and verified it's 680 individual people and not the same handful regurgitating the same QQ in other threads.

Even then, minority vs majority, even assuming that only part of the minority have said anything you are still going to be under 10% of players (being generous with the guess)

Yes I have, in the OP it says,

"

I started looking at some other data. An "o" after the name means the account is older than March 2016. A "$" after the name means that a supporter title is in the profile. An "*" after the name means that neither of those is the case. This was done in response to paranoid people that said I or someone else was creating alt accounts just to up the numbers on the list. This irrational argument has been soundly laid to rest because there are fewer than 4% of the accounts with an *.

Note that early March 2016 was the labyrinth release date.

It seems you're trying to compare the list of 689 accounts against the whole player base. That is a totally meaningless comparison. The nature of the forum is that it is a small subset of the player base. The 689 in the list proves that it is not just 5, 10, or 20 people posting which is what Sidtherat, Goetzjam and company used to claim. I would say that 689 people posting is a significant number voicing their opinion on any issue here in the Feedback and Suggestions forum.

Your next post on the matter was the next day in my time zone and was the following

"

Shovelcut wrote:

"

lagwin1980 wrote:

"680" posters...have you went and verified it's 680 individual people and not the same handful regurgitating the same QQ in other threads.

"

Turtledove wrote:

Yes I have. -snip- This was done in response to paranoid people that said I or someone else was creating alt accounts just to up the numbers on the list. This irrational argument has been soundly laid to rest because there are fewer than 4% of the accounts with an *.

"

Turtledove wrote:

I've added your name to the list. I know you are using an alt account.

"

FixLabPLSGGG wrote:

my army of bump alts.

Yeah...

Therefore, from my perspective you appear to be disingenuous that subject was not about the statement that almost 700 account names was represented by only a handful of individual people.

"

Turtledove wrote:

We were discussing the handful of people representing almost 700 accounts after this post by me on December 28.

No, you were. What mark and I were discussing was your nonfactual claims regarding your "other analysis". But that was spelled out over the course of many, many pages and yet here you are still dancing around the facts. Same old same old...

"

Turtledove wrote:

Therefore, from my perspective you appear to be disingenuous that subject was not about the statement that almost 700 account names was represented by only a handful of individual people.

One word comes to mind when reading this. Delusional.

Edit: lemme break it down what you're quoting...

"

lagwin1980 wrote:

"680" posters...have you went and verified it's 680 individual people

"

Turtledove wrote:

Yes I have.

"

Turtledove wrote:

I've added your name to the list. I know you are using an alt account.

"

FixLabPLSGGG wrote:

my army of bump alts.

This last quote from FixLabPLSGGG is just demonstrating that there is an "army" of alts that have likely been added to the list.

Neither myself NOR mark are talking about anything regarding the people on the list. We're specifically referring to your "fact checking", "account vetting", questionable additions to the list and bold statements. Nothing more, nothing less.

"

Shovelcut wrote:

Neither myself NOR mark are talking about anything regarding the people on the list. We're specifically referring to your "fact checking", "account vetting", questionable additions to the list and bold statements. Nothing more, nothing less.

This has become so ridiculous it's just amusing now.

I don't know why you bother, Turtledove. I recommend you stop feeding these two.

"

gibbousmoon wrote:

"

Shovelcut wrote:

Neither myself NOR mark are talking about anything regarding the people on the list. We're specifically referring to your "fact checking", "account vetting", questionable additions to the list and bold statements. Nothing more, nothing less.

This has become so ridiculous it's just amusing now.

I don't know why you bother, Turtledove. I recommend you stop feeding these two.

Perhaps I worded that wrong.

"

almost 700 account names was represented by only a handful of individual people.

Is what you 2 keep accusing us of referring to, it is not. That is what I was trying to say in what you boldened.

Late edit: It's nice how you completely skipped over the points made before what you quoted to point out my grammatical mistake to try and discredit my point. It's beyond ridiculous how you two are skating around the issue.

"

Shovelcut wrote:

"

Turtledove wrote:

We were discussing the handful of people representing almost 700 accounts after this post by me on December 28.

No, you were. What mark and I were discussing was your nonfactual claims regarding your "other analysis". But that was spelled out over the course of many, many pages and yet here you are still dancing around the facts. Same old same old...

"

Turtledove wrote:

Therefore, from my perspective you appear to be disingenuous that subject was not about the statement that almost 700 account names was represented by only a handful of individual people.

One word comes to mind when reading this. Delusional.

Edit: lemme break it down what you're quoting...

"

lagwin1980 wrote:

"680" posters...have you went and verified it's 680 individual people

"

Turtledove wrote:

Yes I have.

"

Turtledove wrote:

I've added your name to the list. I know you are using an alt account.

"

FixLabPLSGGG wrote:

my army of bump alts.

This last quote from FixLabPLSGGG is just demonstrating that there is an "army" of alts that have likely been added to the list.

Neither myself NOR mark are talking about anything regarding the people on the list. We're specifically referring to your "fact checking", "account vetting", questionable additions to the list and bold statements. Nothing more, nothing less.

Sorry Shovelcut, I understand now your confusion but here's the situation. I did my stated analysis on each individual account. Which is stated right there but you conveniently snipped it out. Now if I was a judgemental jerk I could say you did it on purpose to be deceitful but I don't really believe that I think it more likely you made a mistake. Verifying each individual account is NOT an alt account is not necessary to prove the conclusion false. #FACEPALM


The last post by FixLabPLSGGG was making fun of your ridiculous paranoia that many hundreds of the almost 700 account names in the list only represented a handful of individuals.

Finally, since you think I'm being so god damn deceitful why don't you just go away and drop your silly vendetta because this is my last post on the topic.

"

Turtledove wrote:

Sorry Shovelcut, I understand now your confusion but here's the situation. Verifying each individual account is NOT necessary to prove the conclusion false. #FACEPALM

Nice avoiding the actual point there. I'm not confused. lol

"

Turtledove wrote:

The last post by FixLabPLSGGG was making fun of your ridiculous paranoia that many hundreds of the almost 700 account names in the list only represented a handful of individuals.

LOL nope. Yet another lie. And for the final time, I'm not the one paranoid over how many alts there are. Just pointing out the fact that you're pulling some underhanded shit to make this thread look "more legit".

"

Turtledove wrote:

Finally, since you think I'm being so god damn deceitful why don't you just go away and drop your silly vendetta because this is my last post on the topic.

Nah, I think I'll continue to call out your bullshit when you post it.

You've convinced me turtle. You're scientific method in proving your theories as facts is every bit as legit as having moon rocks as proof we landed on the moon.

I tried to make my post clearer.

Your nonsense has gone beyond ridiculous.

"

Turtledove wrote:

I did my stated analysis on each individual account. Which is stated right there but you conveniently snipped it out. Now if I was a judgemental jerk I could say you did it on purpose to be deceitful but I don't really believe that I think it more likely you made a mistake.

I did snip it out on purpose, for the same reason that I snipped those quotes even further, because you just don't get it.

Your analysis is meaningless rhetoric that serves no purpose other than to make your thread seem more legit. This is the only thing we've actually been discussing for this entire conversation. This is how you're being deceptive and dishonest especially since you claim you're trying to be transparent in your approach to maintaining this thread.

Edit: and also your use of threads that have no place in this thread, and the addition of obvious alts to the total number of people posting. Just to make that clear...

Meanwhile, in Wraeclast...

Another day, another Lab run.