|
|
|||||||
| 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 |
|
#401
10-24-2007, 01:48 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: AP Visit: I\'m going to Costa Rica
[ QUOTE ]
Hi brain: Don't get me wrong. We wish Nat success, but it's very important at this point in time that there be no confusion as to who represents who and what is being done. Best wishes, Mason [/ QUOTE ] Question to the posters of 2+2: Do you trust the following posters to represent your interests and pursue your concerns in investigating Absolute (assuming they receive compensation from Absolute)? 
|
|
#402
10-24-2007, 01:50 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: AP Visit: I\'m going to Costa Rica
[ 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.
|
|
#404
10-24-2007, 01:55 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: AP Visit: I\'m going to Costa Rica
[ 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 ] Yes. I do. [/ QUOTE ] After all the deception and trickery they have shown? Wow [/ QUOTE ] Let's see... and was there one individual who cut right through that deception and trickery? Can ANYONE think of such an individual? Because THAT'S who I'd want to send.
|
|
#405
10-24-2007, 01:57 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: AP Visit: I\'m going to Costa Rica
Nat, I think you have more to lose than gain by going to CR now. As others have said, it's pretty clear that AP is hoping to use you (your good name) to their advantage. Your access will be greatly limited as indicated by you, so what do you see as the best case scenario of your trip/efforts? I suggest that you wait till the audit is complete and arrange to go only when you can be given full access to not only the key data, but also the findings. Ideally if you were called on when the audit were complete, you could go in time to meet the audit team and talk to them directly. Obviously that would mean being on standby - ready to go anytime... a far from savory scenario I know.
I also think it would be prudent to go with 1 or preferably 2 other people for obvious reasons. At the very least the workload would be split 3 ways - not to mention it would boost the perceived integrity of this venture to the naysayers and thus reduce the grief factor. Based on your posts you are clearly a level-headed and cerebral person. I'm sure you'll make the right decision for yourself and whatever you decide; the Community is already greatly indebted to you and those that unraveled this heinous corruption.
|
|
#406
10-24-2007, 01:57 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: AP Visit: I\'m going to Costa Rica
[ 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 ] Yes. I do. [/ QUOTE ] After all the deception and trickery they have shown? Wow [/ QUOTE ] Let's see... and was there one individual who cut right through that deception and trickery? Can ANYONE think of such an individual? Because THAT'S who I'd want to send. [/ QUOTE ] I totally agree. I dont think ANYONE should be sent
|
|
#408
10-24-2007, 02:04 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: AP Visit: I\'m going to Costa Rica
[ QUOTE ]
I think it's clear from the (early) poll results that a silent overwhelming majority would love it if Nat/adanthar/snagglepuss were able to go down. [/ QUOTE ] werd What is there to lose?
|
|
#409
10-24-2007, 02:04 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: AP Visit: I\'m going to Costa Rica
fwiw, I think both N82 and Adanthar should go (or together with snagglepuss). One person can be overwhelmed by many factors and keeping objectivity isn't always easy (though N82 seems as good a candidate as you could ask for). Two or three people are a team, can do reality checks every evening to make sure the story fits, etc.
And the people who are questioning the motives of N82 in asking for a fee are fairly ridiculous. He and others have already done so much in this regard for the benefit of the community for no compensation and obviously his time is worth a lot. I think most of the haters are just trolls / Absolute shills, but they are quite vocal.
|
|
#410
10-24-2007, 02:04 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: AP Visit: I\'m going to Costa Rica
I'd say someone would have to be pretty retarded to read this thread and be confused as to whether Nat represents Two Plus Two the PUBLISHER or not, but then again, anyone that actually reads these threads, can see a lot of people with no reading comprehension are popping up here, so making it clear is what pretty much any of us in Mason's position would.
On the other hand, I seriously doubt people would have such a reaction to Mason's post if it wasn't for the fact that it came on the shoulders of eternal silence. Also, no wonder why the mindless mobs are named the "mindless mobs". Not only have Nat, adanthar, Dan Druff, Josem and others I'm forgetting, spent weeks working on this, putting up with the most absurd tinfoil-hat questions, just to get to the bottom of it, but now they should also cancel their lives if they want to participate a bit more, because getting a cent from this is PROFITING FROM EVIL, right? There is no grey area whatsoever in anyone that goes there getting paid for going. I would probably be a little more wary if someone was actually going "for free", since then I'd start thinking either ulterior motive or they were paid behind the scenes. Nat was the definition of straightforward in his first post. The fact that people explicitly or implicitly question the integrity of those that actually uncovered the whole mess is astounding. Like, the final proof of the ultimate stupidity of man. Do you all not realize that were it not for the fact they decided to work on it on their own, nothing would have happened at all? No accounts repaid? Not even actual confirmation that cheating occured?
|
|
|
|
Linear Mode
