waiting for resolution ED/RAZBAM Situation Info & Discussion

[Hammer1-1]

2 hours ago, Aapje said:

Where is that evidence then?

Evidence is all around you, you just dont like what you see. Quit asking dumb questions.

[Aapje]

1 minute ago, Hammer1-1 said:

Evidence is all around you, you just dont like what you see. Quit asking dumb questions.

Right. The evidence is all around, I just can't present it to you...

 

[NineLine]

1 minute ago, Aapje said:

Right. The evidence is all around, I just can't present it to you...

 

"evidence"

[Hammer1-1]

Just now, Aapje said:

Right. The evidence is all around, I just can't present it to you...

 

You know...I can show it to you, its been showed to you by other people better than me. I cant understand it for you, or see it for you. I get it; you love cheerleading for Ron. Put your big boy panties on and just know that all you gotta do is accept that 2+2=4.

[NineLine]

You guys can also share your evidence in DMs if you are so bound and determined to change someone's mind, but yes, please keep to the first post here. 

[Hammer1-1]

3 minutes ago, NineLine said:

You guys can also share your evidence in DMs if you are so bound and determined to change someone's mind, but yes, please keep to the first post here. 

evidence. Im pretty sure I can get evidence of who definitively shot JFK and he will still question it because it doesnt involve LHO. No, at this point, its monkey business.

[Aapje]

51 minutes ago, Hammer1-1 said:

You know...I can show it to you, its been showed to you by other people better than me. I cant understand it for you, or see it for you. I get it; you love cheerleading for Ron. Put your big boy panties on and just know that all you gotta do is accept that 2+2=4.

You could link to a comment showing this alleged evidence too.

And again, calling people out on making unproven claims is not cheerleading, it is simply not being biased.

Edited 5 hours ago by Aapje

[Hammer1-1]

31 minutes ago, Aapje said:

You could link to a comment showing this alleged evidence too.

And again, calling people out on making unproven claims is not cheerleading, it is simply not being biased.

 Conjecture is all you're going to get no matter how hard you try. The only narrative thats out there is the only narrative that fits 100%. You dont like it. Bummer. Calling a cheerleader a cheerleader isnt being biased.

Edited 4 hours ago by Hammer1-1

[Mainstay]

3 hours ago, Kang said:

In other words: the whole safety clause reasoning was only there to placate the customers at the time and, since this is now all confidential, we as consumers have no clue whether or not this applies to any given product.

That means we would be wise to assume it does not. One might go as far as saying the whole talk about how the VAEO thing won't ever happen again was simply a lie.

In any case, thank you for giving a clearer answer on it.

Hear hear! This is what is going to cost you customers.
If you can’t guarantee your own rules on  releases that were based on after the VEAO situation then why should we trust any 3d party module at all? 
Especially when you say you can’t comment about this…. 

[Nightdare]

56 minutes ago, BIGNEWY said:

No, please re-read what I said. 

thank you 

I did,  according ED themselves, per december 2018, all new agreements after the Hawk are subject to the 'new' rules concerning sourcecode/files

I can't think of one logical reason ED is unwilling to divulge this basic information if module agreements are pre- or post Hawk, as the latter should be equal for all 3rd parties across the board

At least no reason that does not impact the validity of the message ED posted about the contractual way forward after that debacle

 

52 minutes ago, NineLine said:

As I am aware, newer modules and teams have been compliant with all aspects of contracts signed. 

I'm sorry, that's a political non-statement, as this does not elaborate if these contracts have the Post-Hawk stipulation in them

[JeffreyC]

It may be something you have on the back end we don't know about, but I would have my client in such a position have all 3rd party developers sign an addendum for all modules sold no matter when the original contract was executed to put in force the provision. 

[SilentxXxHunter]

35 minutes ago, Nightdare said:

I did,  according ED themselves, per december 2018, all new agreements after the Hawk are subject to the 'new' rules concerning sourcecode/files

I can't think of one logical reason ED is unwilling to divulge this basic information if module agreements are pre- or post Hawk, as the latter should be equal for all 3rd parties across the board

At least no reason that does not impact the validity of the message ED posted about the contractual way forward after that debacle

 

I'm sorry, that's a political non-statement, as this does not elaborate if these contracts have the Post-Hawk stipulation in them

All “new” agreements… the Razbam contracts were already signed prior to the Hawk issue. 

[Nightdare]

13 minutes ago, SilentxXxHunter said:

All “new” agreements… the Razbam contracts were already signed prior to the Hawk issue. 

 

probably yes, but it shows a bigger problem: how many more contracts are older than we suspect? Chinook? F4U?

ED apparently doesn't want us to know which 3rd party modules carry the old risk

And who says we won't be seeing this problem arise again in the next 7 years? I don't know how many older versions of DCS you wanna install?

[Shibbyland]

18 minutes ago, Nightdare said:

 

probably yes, but it shows a bigger problem: how many more contracts are older than we suspect? Chinook? F4U?

ED apparently doesn't want us to know which 3rd party modules carry the old risk

And who says we won't be seeing this problem arise again in the next 7 years? I don't know how many older versions of DCS you wanna install?

We will definitely see this come up again. Possibly not via a ron zombrano kamikaze run but it will come up. It's tough to be in business and there are going to be 3rd party devs who, despite their best efforts, just don't last.

[Mizzy]

3 hours ago, Aapje said:

Right. The evidence is all around, I just can't present it to you...

 

You have not learned your lesson have you. Why not go back to zambrano's discord and stay there. You really are a perpetual nuisance here and I am gobsmacked why you have not been banned other than this forum is far more lenient than zambrano's discord criticising that arsehole. Go away and stop spamming the forum, we hear you, now go away please.

Mizzy   

2 hours ago, Aapje said:

 calling people out on making unproven claims is not cheerleading, it is simply not being biased.

What a strange mindset you have, non sequitur 

Mizzy

Edited 2 hours ago by Mizzy

[Aapje]

3 hours ago, Hammer1-1 said:

 Conjecture is all you're going to get no matter how hard you try.

OK, so you admit to not having evidence and only conjecture.

So when you said that you had evidence, you were lying, weren't you?

3 hours ago, Hammer1-1 said:

The only narrative thats out there is the only narrative that fits 100%.

There are multiple narratives out there, so what is this nonsense about there being only one narrative?

And you are not even explaining what narrative you are talking about, but this seems to be a pattern with you, where you just keep insinuating, rather than actually writing things down. This strongly suggests that you are just bluffing, and can't actually write things down.

3 hours ago, Hammer1-1 said:

You dont like it. Bummer. Calling a cheerleader a cheerleader isnt being biased.

Again, I have never been a cheerleader for Razbam. You seem to have a severe problem with the truth.

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

5 hours ago, Aapje said:

Right. The evidence is all around, I just can't present it to you...

 

I mean, it's hard to present it when you don't want to see it, but go off, king.