This is my last response to you Sprite.
This post will come off as autistic but at this point I don't care.
1. Why are you grandstanding about insults?
You complained about me insulting you. I then provide claims that you use insults often. Somehow you want to then shift over the conversation to a war about who used the most and worst insults.
Dude, I don't care. Insult me, message kn and tell him to insult me too, do whatever you'd like. You insulting yak's appearence just proves that you are a dishonest hypocrite and that you faked concern about insults only when they're about you and your friends.
2. Why are you so obsessed with me giving you answers? Is there any legitimate reason why you require me to rephrase Clark's and quintosh's points and give them to you again? Why is it not okay for me to literally quote them? (Like I did in post #82)
3. Why do you keep saying that I have "never answered you" or "contributed to the conversation"?
You have IGNORED ME every single time.
- In post #78 I asked you to specify what exactly you didn't believe in Clark's post. You still haven't done it. You then fail to comprehend the simplest of logic: "I didn't disbelieve it". Yes sprite, you can in fact not believe in what clark said and at the same time not disbelieve it. It's called "not being sure", or "not knowing". And "not knowing" also falls under the definition of NOT BELIEVING. So, what exactly do you not believe?
- In post #78 I stated that the integrity of the AC team is far greater than the integrity of the convicted cheater. To this point of the conversation you have not demonstrated that there is an ounce of bias in the AC-process, nor have you demonstrated even a single wrongful conviction.
- In post #82 I asked why you're arguing if you don't disbelieve. You then distort it as me saying "You're not allowed to speak up on this matter". This is re-writing the meaning of the words I used. This is a strawman argument. You didn't comment on this either.
- In post #82 I said that "You saying that it's based on guesswork shows you actually have no idea how cheaters are caught lmao." You have not demonstrated an ounce of knowledge of any of the methods that the AC-staff in etf2l use. It's not based on guesswork, it's based on proof.
- In post #91 I actually did rephrase Clark's and quintosh's statements for you. In my own words. It's a direct response. You dismissed it for no reason what so ever.
This is proof that, even outside of my quotes of Clark and quintosh I have directly adressed your arguments.
4. You keep going back to the same argument. You haven't publicized the proof of him cheating. (I also tried to demonstrate this to you with the flow chart but it looks like you didn't understand it.)
Me, samski, quintosh, and Clark, and others, have tried to tell you the reasoning behind why the proof is not published, and why certain tools are not published. You have ignored it every time and just rephrased/restated your belief that "You haven't publicized the proof, therefore he shouldn't be banned / considered guilty".
It's evident you actually haven't understood the reasoning, and you have not tried to come up with a counterargument either.