The Shadowrun Situation

[Fuchs]

It's quite a mistake for a laywer to use "the members" instead of "members".

Just curious, is that the opinion of a lawyer? Because the only other lawyer to weigh in on it (that I have seen) disagrees.

Yes, I am a lawyer. Not in the US though, so they may have lower standards for their lawyers when it comes to precise language.

[Fuchs]

But in our courts a lawyer claiming that two people were the members of something would be taken to have stated that those two were the only members of that something.

[Kaelik]

Seriously? After admitting just a few posts above that you were in error, you are going to pull this kind of bullshit? Have it your way, I will be more precise. That "somebody" is Kaelik.

So your contention is that I made fallacious arguments that were disproved?

Could you then, quote one of my fallacious arguments?

[Crissa]

That's pretty much our courts, too, Fuchs.

But you get what you pay for.

-Crissa

[Taharqa]

Ok, if thats the way you want. The first misstatement was your claim that my quote of Kid Chameleon over on dumpshock was "bullshit apologist crap" because Kid Chameleon was probably just a cover for Randall Bills:

I will continue to call you on your bullshit apologist crap. Especially the part where you probably just quoted Randall Bills defending Loren Coleman like that means Loren didn't lie to Bills, even though Randall publicly admitted that Loren lied to him but that it was totally okay, because God said it doesn't matter, so he will stick by him. So fuck.

If you think Randall Bills saying Loren didn't lie about ownership makes it less likely, you are insane.

Maybe it's not Randall, but it's some other shill, who cares?

The last sentence there suggests that you had already caught on to the fact that you were wrong. Frank actually confirmed in a post directly above that Kid Chameleon was not Randall Bills, and as I pointed out in a later post a simple google search would have returned you the information that Kid Chameleon is Ken Horner, not Randall Bills.

In a defense of yourself, you then went on to argue that Randall Bills was a mod at dumpshock and therefore could have easily modified someone else's post or even used someone else's identity. After pointing out that Randall Bills was not a mod on dumpshock, you actually admitted your error here:

My mistake, I confused Bull with Bill. In fact, he's an entirely different apologist asshole, with no financial relationship to IMR.

Of course, as Frank pointed out later, Bull actually does have a financial relationship to IMR, as a freelancer. But thats just a minor quibble.

Are we done here? I am really much more interested in why Cent thinks I am Loren Coleman.

[Username17]

Tarharqa, you just fell into a very basic trap. None of those things are fallacious. Those are factually incorrect. That's not the same thing. Fallacies are arguments that do not link your facts and your conclusions. Such as, ironically, quoting someone saying something factually wrong and accusing them of a fallacy.

Kaelik just nailed you. Badly. He asked you to quote him making a fallacious argument and in the process you made a fallacious argument.

-Username17

[Centurion13]

I am really much more interested in why Cent thinks I am Loren Coleman.

I think you are really more interested in sowing seeds of discord. Which, curiously enough, is the accusation you level at others. But SFW? None of it matters, all that matters is that folks keep generally abreast of the events. You sure as hell are not the guy who will keep us informed, so yeah, I will give ol' Frank his due and keep my ear to the metaphorical ground.

What can be said about confusing you and Mistah Coleman? One snake oil salesman looks much like another here on the internet. The mistake - if it was a mistake - was natural.

Cent13

[Kaelik]

The first misstatement was your claim that my quote of Kid Chameleon over on dumpshock was "bullshit apologist crap" because Kid Chameleon was probably just a cover for Randall Bills:

Did I ever claim that Kid Chameleon was a cover for Randall Bills? No I didn't. I posted that you "probably" quoted him, because he is the only other "owner" who anyone actually knows is an "owner" based on anything other than their word, and by far the most active "owner."

I also said that maybe you didn't link to him, because you linked to some other completely meaningless person that no one ha heard of, but that it didn't really matter, because what someone who is on Loren Coleman's side claims about owership is less important than actual court documents.

What I didn't do was even click your meaningless link, because, once again, it was meaningless.

So I did make a statement. What I didn't do was make an argument for anything at all in that post.

The last sentence there suggests that you had already caught on to the fact that you were wrong.

No, that last sentence suggests that I accept it is possible that you linked to someone totally unimportant with no influence or knowledge at all instead of the person who has both, but is a filthy liar. It suggests that I don't know which, because fuck it, I don't care.

In a defense of yourself, you then went on to argue that Randall Bills was a mod at dumpshock and therefore could have easily modified someone else's post or even used someone else's identity.

No, I argued that it would require a significant investment of my time to assure that Randall Bills was not the one you were linking to, based on the false premise that Randall Bills was the head of dumpshock.

This turned out to be a true conclusion to a valid argument based on a false premise.

But more importantly, even if the argument were fallacious as well, in no way would that argument have been the cause of the tangent, as you claimed, since it actually came after the tangent was begun by my false premise.

So now that we have established that I was incorrect about one fact, and that I don't like you. Could you pretend to address the arguments made by people who actually know about the situation, like, you know, the people presenting evidence for Loren Coleman committing stock fraud.

EDIT: And ninjaed by Frank again. This makes me sad and happy at the same time.

[Taharqa]

Tarharqa, you just fell into a very basic trap. None of those things are fallacious. Those are factually incorrect. That's not the same thing. Fallacies are arguments that do not link your facts and your conclusions. Such as, ironically, quoting someone saying something factually wrong and accusing them of a fallacy.

Kaelik just nailed you. Badly. He asked you to quote him making a fallacious argument and in the process you made a fallacious argument.

-Username17

So, in your view I am "nailed" because I pointed out factual errors rather than fallacies. Wow, good thing I didn't throw a "the" in there or I would be totally sunk.

Its funny I don't feel "nailed." Seems to me that your point (echoed by Kaelik below you) is pedantic, petty and I dare say, juvenile.

[Taharqa]

I think you are really more interested in sowing seeds of discord. Which, curiously enough, is the accusation you level at others.
Cent13

Thats not the accusation I have leveled at others. The accusation is that the mutual and circular citation of ungrounded speculation does not constitute evidence.

[Crissa]

What speculation is ungrounded, exactly?

-Crissa

[Taharqa]

What speculation is ungrounded, exactly?

-Crissa

Its interesting you should ask that since it was my response to your speculation which has generated a now three page backlash.

Namely, the speculation was that the wording of the court documents in the bankruptcy case implied that Loren Coleman and his wife were the sole owners of CGL and therefore all the other people who thought they were owners were actually swindled by Coleman (including, apparently, Randall Bills). The number of assumptions embedded in that speculation about how CGL actually operates and the motivations and intent of individuals is ... well, lets just say quite large.

Of course, Frank will likely pop in here and say in an authoritative voice that stock swindling is not a speculation. A favorite trick of his is to make his own statements sound as if they are the unimpeachable truth when they are in fact speculations/exaggerations/mischaracterization/spins by someone with an axe to grind, who's anonymous sources of information are also people with axes to grind.

[Crissa]

You do realize there is more than one document this is all based upon, right? There's the chaper seven initiation (which isn't in this thread), but then again, there's the audit of the LLC (which Frank received from the Colemans), as well as the press releases on dumpshock et al.

Now, do you have proof that the Colemans aren't saying they own the company outright? Because there is actually little documentation to the contrary. And you aren't saying that they are the only owners, because you've said that there are more owners.

So which is it? There are more owners than the Colemans, and they've been defrauding for tax purposes; or the Colemans have been defrauding others by saying they've invested in the company? It's rather an either-or here.

-Crissa

stupid double negatives

[Centurion13]

The accusation is that the mutual and circular citation of ungrounded speculation does not constitute evidence.

"Mutual and circular citation of ungrounded speculation"... hmmm. Nope, I think that qualifies as 'seeds of discord'.

Oh, wait, you didn't actually call it that, so I'm off-base. Ooo, pwned by a refugee from Internet Infidels.

SFW. No one ever said it constituted evidence which would hold up in a court of law. It serves the court of public opinion just fine.

And the more I read this kind of hairsplitting crap from guys like you, the more anxious I am to see Mistah Coleman and his entire Inner Ring - including hangers-on and fanboys like you - get slammed and banished from the business of producing BattleTech or Shadowrun.

You are not helping their case. At all.

Cent13
[/b]

[Centurion13]

...speculations/exaggerations/mischaracterization/spins by someone with an axe to grind, who's anonymous sources of information are also people with axes to grind.

Give it up, you fraud. This is precisely the same tripe your sort was spitting out back when the whole thing blew open.

The trouble is this: I. Don't. Believe. You. Monkeys will fly out of my fat white ass before I buy what you say over what anyone else says on this forum.

You've made it clear you are the one with the axe to grind. In fact, you're guilty of nearly every accusation you've leveled at the speakers here. What a pest!

Cent13

[Count Arioch the 28th]

[Kaelik]

Actually, what I find super hilarious is Tarquamadadadada and people on dumpshock, and everyone on the official BattleTech forums.

They all have this hilarious anti-Frank argument that they think is super witty and totally destroys him and saves their beleaguered arguments:

"I believe Randall Bills and Loren Coleman over Frank Trollman because it's obvious that Frank Trollman has an axe to grind/dog in this race/hates black people." Whether they are trying to accuse him of stealing Shadowrun for himself, or being mean and vengeful, nothing is more hilarious than claiming that Frank Trollman is totally biased about CGL, but Randall Bills isn't.

Those are great arguments to see and laugh at.

Honorable mention to "Frank Trollman made fun of someone's religion, and no one should be able to criticize someone else's religion ever, and therefore, everything Frank Trollman ever says is incorrect."

[Taharqa]

Actually, what I find super hilarious is Tarquamadadadada and people on dumpshock, and everyone on the official BattleTech forums.

They all have this hilarious anti-Frank argument that they think is super witty and totally destroys him and saves their beleaguered arguments:

"I believe Randall Bills and Loren Coleman over Frank Trollman because it's obvious that Frank Trollman has an axe to grind/dog in this race/hates black people." Whether they are trying to accuse him of stealing Shadowrun for himself, or being mean and vengeful, nothing is more hilarious than claiming that Frank Trollman is totally biased about CGL, but Randall Bills isn't.

Those are great arguments to see and laugh at.

I never said that you should trust CGL and/or Randall Bills. I have no more trust in CGL's press releases than I have in Frank's statements. Both sources have clear biases. But, until something tangible surfaces from an unbiased source, its simply best to leave the pitchforks in the shed.

Cent, I am not asking you to believe anything. I am not pitching a position here and I am certainly not defending CGL, who by any objective measure fucked up. I am simply saying to cut the knee-jerk reactionary bullshit, and don't jump to conclusions. You know, like assuming that Lone Wolf was given the license to Shadowrun. I certainly did nothing to provoke the kind of bile you are spewing on me, so you might want to take a deep breath and ask yourself why you are so angry.

[Crissa]

Who here assumed Lone Wolf got the license to Shadowrun?

Why didn't you answer my last post?

-Crissa

[Centurion13]

...knee-jerk reactionary bullshit, and don't jump to conclusions. You know, like assuming that Lone Wolf was given the license to Shadowrun. I certainly did nothing to provoke the kind of bile you are spewing on me, so you might want to take a deep breath and ask yourself why you are so angry.

...knee-jerk reactionary bullshit, and don't jump to conclusions. You know, like assuming that Lone Wolf was given the license to Shadowrun. I certainly did nothing to provoke the kind of bile you are spewing on me, so you might want to take a deep breath and ask yourself why you are so angry.

...knee-jerk reactionary bullshit, and don't jump to conclusions. You know, like assuming that Lone Wolf was given the license to Shadowrun. I certainly did nothing to provoke the kind of bile you are spewing on me, so you might want to take a deep breath and ask yourself why you are so angry.

A link to my blog!!!

Squeeeee!

C'mon, folks, I've quoted that rascal three, count 'em, three times. Now you got NO excuse!

Get your knee-jerk reactionary bullshit fresh from the source - don't take the Tarq's word for it. While you're there, be sure to stop by our other entries where you can take your pick from some of the finest bourgeois theistic elitist crappola to be found in the blogosphere. We prepare it weekly!

I'm not angry with you, Tarq baby. Momentarily vexed, but yer a trollkin, like in Runequest. Bile is your natural element. If there were no bile on this board, you would have no wind in your sails.

Admit it, you punt! You depend on the likes of me.

Golly, that one is gonna keep me in giggles until I turn in for bed. Oh, Tarq! Who knew you had it in you?

Cent13[/i]

[Crissa]

Okay, so, some guy who just started posting here made a mistake, and didn't even post it here.

Also, the thread here with the comments about religion was locked.

Bizarre that we're supposed to also read every reader's blog, too? WTF?

-Crissa

[Calibron]

Crissa...what?

[Taharqa]

OK, Crissa, if you want me to restrict examples to this board, how about this bit of nonsense?

Good thing he's not a primary source, huh?

Or do we have someone here who believe that Topps et al is involved in forcing bankruptcy proceedings for no reason?

-Crissa

[Crissa]

So, are you saying there isn't a attempt to force bankruptcy proceedings?

-Crissa

[Centurion13]

Okay, so, some guy who just started posting here made a mistake, and didn't even post it here.

Also, the thread here with the comments about religion was locked.

Bizarre that we're supposed to also read every reader's blog, too? WTF?

-Crissa

Eh, I didn't mean you should have to read it. Just pointing out that it is a blog and full of unjustified comments left and right. It's a blog.

It doesn't really need the traffic. It's so I can keep in touch with writers and artists who are interested in our project.

Cent13