[egj]

[ QUOTE ]
Nat doesn't officially represent 2+2...Nat is the man, but why would Mason let him say he's going to represent 2+2?

I'm assuming this is the part you disagree with:

[ QUOTE ]
Second, Absolute has apparently agreed to allow Bluff Magazine and Pocket Fives to review the findings of the investigation without a similar arrangement for Two Plus Two. This seems strange considering Two Plus Two’s role in uncovering and discussing this situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is he not 100% right? Nat et al obviously deserve all of the credit, but they were posting on the 2+2 forum. Couldn't he be using the word "2+2" instead of "the two plus two posters?"

2+2 should be first in line, not Bluff or P5s. Maybe I shouldn't have said "don't post anymore" but seriously, it's not like Mason is trying to take the credit for this.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't want to overstate things: I tend to agree that Mason wouldn't take personal credit for the unmasking of this scandal.

The term "Two Plus Two" can mean one of two things: 1) Two Plus Two, the company, who operate the messageboards and publish the books and so forth; 2) Two Plus Two, the community, a few members of whom uncovered the cheating at Absolute.

Basically my objection is to Mason's second statement (the one at the top of this thread), which could be interpreted as trying to take the credit due to the Two Plus Two community (well, really Nat and a few others) and get it applied to Two Plus Two, the company.

[ QUOTE ]
Couldn't he be using the word "2+2" instead of "the two plus two posters?"

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, possibly, but it didn't come across that way to me. He's suggesting that it's his lawyers (not Nat or Adanthar's lawyers) who ought to be welcomed into Absolute's offices.