|
|
|||||||
| View Poll Results: Notre Dame 8-1 | |||
| 1 |
   
|
0 | 0% |
| 2 |
  
|
1 | 2.78% |
| 3 |
  
|
1 | 2.78% |
| 4 |
  
|
0 | 0% |
| 5 |
  
|
1 | 2.78% |
| 6 |
  
|
2 | 5.56% |
| 7 |
|
2 | 5.56% |
| 8 |
|
11 | 30.56% |
| 9 |
|
5 | 13.89% |
| 10 |
|
13 | 36.11% |
| Voters: 36. You may not vote on this poll | |||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#421
10-24-2007, 02:15 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: AP Visit: I\'m going to Costa Rica
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Surely if the goal isn't to bankrupt the company but turn it into a good one, the only way to realistically achieve this is to get the right people fired (Scott Tom, AJ, etc) Is this your intention adanthar/nat/whomever else is involved? [/ QUOTE ] Yes, and I've lately been repeatedly told that Scott Tom is gone *and not coming back*. (Green is not an issue because it's apparent most of them want him diagf.) This would be one of the things that would be easier to confirm in CR. El Diablo's comment here is a valid criticism, but we have a couple of ways I won't mention to check up on that angle. This would also be one of the several obvious reasons for AP to invite Nat that, if true, does not involve any whitewashing on their part. [/ QUOTE ] I see... thanks for replying and appreciate the work you've done. 
|
|
#422
10-24-2007, 02:15 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: AP Visit: I\'m going to Costa Rica
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Its an insult to Nat that you'll assume that he'd be taken advantaged of by AP. /arg. [/ QUOTE ] no one reasonable is saying he is gonna be "taken advantage of." rather, we think he will simply be ineffective bc he doesnt have the resources, skills and experience to conduct a full audit and bc ap will not give him full disclosure. he will see what ap wants him to see and ap will give rehearsed nonimplicating answers. [/ QUOTE ] ding! Thank you victor, you always seem to post in a far clearer and more concise manner than I
|
|
#423
10-24-2007, 02:17 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: AP Visit: I\'m going to Costa Rica
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Ill ask again. Does ANYONE think that AP would actually invite him if they werent certain that he would leave and give them a good image.* *As to how that would happen, I am not commenting. [/ QUOTE ] It'd be a better image than what random, uninformed people have been posting all over this thread, so I don't find this disturbing at all. [/ QUOTE ] Better? Yes we are def in agreement. My point was that not nearly enough people seem at all curious as to the whole chain of events. Stonewall Stonewall Lies Stonewall Lack of info Stonewall ***HEY, come on down!! A "better" image is exactly what they KNOW they will get out of this, and thats exactly why it shouldnt be done. They should get a FULL AUDIT by a TRUELY INDEPENDANT AUDITOR. All this [censored] talk of the GA audit and inviting people down seems to have gotten the conversation away from what that...which is certainly what the majority was demanding a few threads ago. You guys are letting them win. Edit- For the record, I am down ~13-15k to the cheat accounts...and those are only the known ones. So that puts us in the same camp. Have you gotten your cashout/s yet? [/ QUOTE ] Its an insult to Nat that you'll assume that he'd be taken advantaged of by AP. /arg. [/ QUOTE ] yes because Nat is an all seeing deity that can instantly detect ANYTHING out of the ordinary ~_~ [/ QUOTE ] Thats not the point, the point is that its better for him to go and actually see things in person than it is to continue the investigation from his computer (which seems has pretty much run its course). Also, the idea that Abso will be exonerated by a good appearance with Nat is ridiculous.
|
|
#424
10-24-2007, 02:17 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: AP Visit: I\'m going to Costa Rica
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Its an insult to Nat that you'll assume that he'd be taken advantaged of by AP. /arg. [/ QUOTE ] no one reasonable is saying he is gonna be "taken advantage of." rather, we think he will simply be ineffective bc he doesnt have the resources, skills and experience to conduct a full audit and bc ap will not give him full disclosure. he will see what ap wants him to see and ap will give rehearsed nonimplicating answers. regardless, im all for him going down there. its better than nothing and while its unlikely he uncovers hard evidence he will certainly be able to pick up on some aspects of the operation. [/ QUOTE ] hammer meets nail.
|
|
#425
10-24-2007, 02:19 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: AP Visit: I\'m going to Costa Rica
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Its an insult to Nat that you'll assume that he'd be taken advantaged of by AP. /arg. [/ QUOTE ] no one reasonable is saying he is gonna be "taken advantage of." rather, we think he will simply be ineffective bc he doesnt have the resources, skills and experience to conduct a full audit and bc ap will not give him full disclosure. he will see what ap wants him to see and ap will give rehearsed nonimplicating answers. [/ QUOTE ] ding! Thank you victor, you always seem to post in a far clearer and more concise manner than I [/ QUOTE ] yet you don't include the second half of his post, wonder why? Also, are you admitting you were being unreasonable? Because you were def questioning whether he'd be taken adv of.
|
|
#426
10-24-2007, 02:19 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: AP Visit: I\'m going to Costa Rica
Victor,
Who do you then think should be doing this? Nat is a pretty smart guy, knowledgable of the players and the facts here, and has a plan for what he wishes to see and what to ask. Last I checked that was one of the more important parts of an audit.
|
|
#427
10-24-2007, 02:19 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: AP Visit: I\'m going to Costa Rica
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Ill ask again. Does ANYONE think that AP would actually invite him if they werent certain that he would leave and give them a good image.* *As to how that would happen, I am not commenting. [/ QUOTE ] It'd be a better image than what random, uninformed people have been posting all over this thread, so I don't find this disturbing at all. [/ QUOTE ] Better? Yes we are def in agreement. My point was that not nearly enough people seem at all curious as to the whole chain of events. Stonewall Stonewall Lies Stonewall Lack of info Stonewall ***HEY, come on down!! A "better" image is exactly what they KNOW they will get out of this, and thats exactly why it shouldnt be done. They should get a FULL AUDIT by a TRUELY INDEPENDANT AUDITOR. All this [censored] talk of the GA audit and inviting people down seems to have gotten the conversation away from what that...which is certainly what the majority was demanding a few threads ago. You guys are letting them win. Edit- For the record, I am down ~13-15k to the cheat accounts...and those are only the known ones. So that puts us in the same camp. Have you gotten your cashout/s yet? [/ QUOTE ] Its an insult to Nat that you'll assume that he'd be taken advantaged of by AP. /arg. [/ QUOTE ] yes because Nat is an all seeing deity that can instantly detect ANYTHING out of the ordinary ~_~ [/ QUOTE ] Thats not the point, the point is that its better for him to go and actually see things in person than it is to continue the investigation from his computer (which seems has pretty much run its course). Also, the idea that Abso will be exonerated by a good appearance with Nat is ridiculous. [/ QUOTE ] Im not saying that its a certainty...however for example Josems first thought was that he would take the website down on Nats cue and iirc Teddy said he would play there if Nat gave them the ok
|
|
#428
10-24-2007, 02:20 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: AP Visit: I\'m going to Costa Rica
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Its an insult to Nat that you'll assume that he'd be taken advantaged of by AP. /arg. [/ QUOTE ] no one reasonable is saying he is gonna be "taken advantage of." rather, we think he will simply be ineffective bc he doesnt have the resources, skills and experience to conduct a full audit and bc ap will not give him full disclosure. he will see what ap wants him to see and ap will give rehearsed nonimplicating answers. [/ QUOTE ] ding! Thank you victor, you always seem to post in a far clearer and more concise manner than I [/ QUOTE ] yet you don't include the second half of his post, wonder why? [/ QUOTE ] Because I dont agree with it
|
|
#429
10-24-2007, 02:20 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: AP Visit: I\'m going to Costa Rica
[ QUOTE ]
As others have said, it's pretty clear that AP is hoping to use you (your good name) to their advantage. [/ QUOTE ] Here's the thing about having a good name. You get it by being put in situations like this and not wavering from your convictions. Most people who have a good name have it for two reasons. 1) that's who they are. 2) they seek to preserve it by sticking to their convictions. There may be little upside to Nat visiting. But that's a different argument than those expressing a wish that AP burn to the ground, and that Nat not help them "stay in business" by somehow wrongly helping legitimize their cleanup.
|
|
#430
10-24-2007, 02:21 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: AP Visit: I\'m going to Costa Rica
[ QUOTE ]
Victor, Who do you then think should be doing this? Nat is a pretty smart guy, knowledgable of the players and the facts here, and has a plan for what he wishes to see and what to ask. Last I checked that was one of the more important parts of an audit. [/ QUOTE ] They need a FULL audit by a reputable audit company that has no affiliation with internet gambling. Its not like they dont have time to cook up answers for just about anything he can ask them
|
|
|
|
Linear Mode
