waiting for resolution ED/RAZBAM Situation Info & Discussion

[Hammer1-1]

17 hours ago, Pipe said:

Because their not holding the gun..

Uh...right.

[Esac_mirmidon]

55 minutes ago, Neil Gardner said:

I’m sorry, I don’t mean to be adversarial but no commercial organisation knows what’s coming around the corner. They don’t exist for you and I, they exist to compete in a market for money, one that may or may not grace them with its favour. Tomorrow the proverbial might hit the fan and it could be 2007 or 1923 again and then our little worries about whether or not there will be a little digital model of an F15 working in a months time will have become a little besides the point. To state the obvious we really do, sometimes, need to remind ourselves that anyone in one of the world’s numerous war zones at the moment may take quite a dim view of the worries thar exercise you and I. 
So, the answer is count as a plus what you have today and enjoy it whilst you have it because tomorrow you, me and everything else might have been reduced to a load of dust in a fall out cloud - not be too over dramatic am I?

You have missed global earthquake, alien invasion, asteroid hitting the earth and a zombie invasion. 

I will fly the Harrier as much as possible, you never know. I hope a thermonuclear war doesnt stop me to fly the Fulcrum in September.

Edited 14 hours ago by Esac_mirmidon

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

30 minutes ago, Esac_mirmidon said:

I hope a thermonuclear war doesnt stop me to fly the Fulcrum in September.

Don't worry about that. There are forces at work that will never allow that to happen. We've come too far

[gunterlund]

how can I get a refund on the Strike eagle. The support page is not clear. 

[Aapje]

3 hours ago, Mizzy said:

You mean we are still waiting to hear if zambrano has fulfilled his obligations under the agreement. Remember the problem was caused by him in the first place. However, ED has stated the agreement is confidential and you don't quite grasp the concept of what confidential mean.

I can't really answer this without getting another penalty, I think, so...

[Mizzy]

33 minutes ago, Aapje said:

I can't really answer this without getting another penalty, I think, so...

Have you thought your posts are simply antagonistic and without a shred of official evidence against ED or even evidence to support Zambrano?

As for the very poor excuse that you can't answer my post because you have received penalty points, let me tell you, if you have received penalties that is a private matter, read the forum rules! If you wish to answer me, make it factual and only cite official statements. I am not interested in your unwaning support for Zambrano unless you have official support from him, do you understand !

[Hammer1-1]

12 minutes ago, Mizzy said:

Have you thought your posts are simply antagonistic and without a shred of official evidence against ED or even evidence to support Zambrano?

As for the very poor excuse that you can't answer my post because you have received penalty points, let me tell you, if you have received penalties that is a private matter, read the forum rules! If you wish to answer me, make it factual and only cite official statements. I am not interested in your unwaning support for Zambrano unless you have official support from him, do you understand !

I think he just automatically disregards information he disagrees with regardless of fact or fiction.

[rob10]

13 hours ago, jeventy26 said:

Still wondering if anyone has thoughts on this... because unless I'm missing something, ED did say they'd retain the files, and now we're finding out they don't.  That's not a legal gray area, and unless I am missing something that seems like a broken promise to customers?  

You're right, it's not a legal gray area.  They said "ALL FUTURE 3rd PARTY AGREEMENTS".  F-15 (and likely the others) were by all reports already underway by that point, so they weren't "future agreements".  They may not have been officially announced, but that doesn't mean they weren't signed.

[NineLine]

3 hours ago, Aapje said:

I can't really answer this without getting another penalty, I think, so...

Please read the rules, especially 1.3. Thanks

[Nightdare]

7 hours ago, Neil Gardner said:

I’m sorry, I don’t mean to be adversarial but no commercial organisation knows what’s coming around the corner. They don’t exist for you and I, they exist to compete in a market for money, one that may or may not grace them with its favour. Tomorrow the proverbial might hit the fan and it could be 2007 or 1923 again and then our little worries about whether or not there will be a little digital model of an F15 working in a months time will have become a little besides the point. To state the obvious we really do, sometimes, need to remind ourselves that anyone in one of the world’s numerous war zones at the moment may take quite a dim view of the worries thar exercise you and I. 
So, the answer is count as a plus what you have today and enjoy it whilst you have it because tomorrow you, me and everything else might have been reduced to a load of dust in a fall out cloud - not be too over dramatic am I?

 

Nice platitude

 

[NineLine]

2 hours ago, Mizzy said:

Have you thought your posts are simply antagonistic and without a shred of official evidence against ED or even evidence to support Zambrano?

As for the very poor excuse that you can't answer my post because you have received penalty points, let me tell you, if you have received penalties that is a private matter, read the forum rules! If you wish to answer me, make it factual and only cite official statements. I am not interested in your unwaning support for Zambrano unless you have official support from him, do you understand !

We won't change what each other thinks, no matter how hard we try, unless we all meet up for a pint at a local bar. 

[Tank50us]

2 hours ago, NineLine said:

We won't change what each other thinks, no matter how hard we try, unless we all meet up for a pint at a local bar. 

since I don't drink, I'll be the Designated Driver

[some1]

5 hours ago, rob10 said:

They said "ALL FUTURE 3rd PARTY AGREEMENTS".  F-15 (and likely the others) were by all reports already underway by that point, so they weren't "future agreements".  They may not have been officially announced, but that doesn't mean they weren't signed.

Makes you wonder what other important bits of information ED leaves out of their press announcements.

[Oban]

26 minutes ago, some1 said:

Makes you wonder what other important bits of information ED leaves out of their press announcements.

Stuff that's confidential, what's so difficult to understand about all of this? 

[some1]

2 minutes ago, Oban said:

Stuff that's confidential, what's so difficult to understand about all of this? 

How convenient. And who do you think made that stuff confidential in the first place?

Ultimately ED controls which information they decide to share with the public.

 

[Horns]

52 minutes ago, some1 said:

Makes you wonder what other important bits of information ED leaves out of their press announcements.

There was nothing left out of that, 'new third-party agreements' by definition would not include existing third-party agreements. Unless you think the Oxford Dictionary is conspiring with ED. Hey wait a second, Nick Grey is English...

[MicroShket]

22 минуты назад, some1 сказал:

And who do you think made that stuff confidential in the first place?

Why are you so insistent about "official use only" information? I don't know of any company that puts its internal affairs on public display. We are not subcontractors even.

[Kang]

While it is obviously correct that any such ideas can't be worked into previously signed contracts, I tend to agree that the way it was published - in the light of what we now seem to experience - has been quite misleading to the community.

At which point does the whole Hawk Prevention Clause™ actually start working? Any of the 3rd party modules that are currently available? Any of the ones that are currently announced?

 

Quite frankly, the whole 'well, this was not announced, but the contract had been signed long before that' line of argumentation - even if factually correct - makes the whole thing nothing but smoke and mirrors, as the supposed guarantee may or may not be applicable to anything with nobody knowing.