Posted March 17, 2024
( part 2 / 2 )
>> Let me make something CRYSTAL CLEAR to everyone in the community. <<
I have ZERO ISSUE with you
you
Let alone you ( zero issue at all ),
and pretty much most of all the others in here, I have zero issue or beef with.
My grudge is exclusively towards HIM
and a certain highly unprofessional somebody ( btw, constantly breaking his own rules ) who then took his side, in extreme show of far fetched BIAS and renowned HYPOCRISY, and proceeded to outright ban me from THEN-his-controlled edition of giveaway, back then, because he 'didn't like me pointing out giveaway then-rules to people breaking them', he 'didn't like me writing a lot of text in our private exchanges', and because I did NOT and would NEVER agree with the SHADY "work ethics", but he agreed with, of
Which by the way, despite data loss around the exact same time, I probably do still have somewhere all screenshots of all related PMs with the related parties from back then.
Including, a PM to
all the way back in may 2021, asking him to remove my ID from the then-post ( btw, STILL not removed as of today, and yes, I indeed rechecked to be sure ) - bc MY ID has no business being made example of ( WHY wouldn't he use his own? Think about it ) WITHOUT MY CONSENT. PM which is STILL VISIBLE, yet he 100% ignored it, did not even respond to it at all.
Because he never had "good will" to begin with. This was his blatant provocation to begin with.
Like, holy s**t. You really have to have some real AUDACITY to pull the EXACT SAME STUNT 3 years later - when the case was already filed as "unresolved" ( he ignored my removal request ) and shelved by me - and now you RE-opened it, in a "I DARE YOU" way.
And you know what? This proves my point from 3 years ago PERFECTLY,
YOU
have ZERO WORK ETHICS.
If you see NO PROBLEM sharing such information - you'd THINK you'd LOGICALLY use YOUR OWN ID as an example you are making - but noooo - this isn't YOUR LOGIC.
No no, it's best to make an example of someone else. PERFECT LOGIC am I right?
You are a COWARD, a HYPOCRITE, and UNPROFESSIONAL.
In a high security facility workplace, you would get FIRED over something like this, or worse.
But this is the internet, and especially a hypocritical forum so you probably assumed "tHiS iS gOg sO NoOnE wIlL CaRe".
You are PATHETIC. Get a life.
And most importantly, I wish you to never work in IT field, and that you never find your way into said industry, you would be an inside job or a 'security breach through negligence ( or EGO tripping )' waiting to happen.
...
He... FLAILS information around. Information HE HIMSELF cannot PROVE with 100% certainty was MEANT by GOG to be seen at all.
When confronted about this fact, he either runs away from the conversation ( cue ignoring PMs ), or rubs it in and doubles down.
To nobody's surprise ( at least not to people who have been around "all kinds of places on the internet" ) there tends to be 1+ person who takes his side blindly, outright failing at common sense.
I am a PROFESSIONAL ( not to be confused with TEMPER ), and I would LIKE all people to be professional too.
A case of "this isn't correct, let me make example out of YOUR INFORMATION, information that I CANNOT prove was even meant to be seen" is NOWHERE NEAR professional.
It's in fact a provocation attempt, rage bait. Testing people's patience, logic and morals - which admittedly - plenty of people lack, and they blatantly take his side by misreading the situation and failing at logic.
Hey, let's dig deeper into GOG's insecure backend, maybe we will someday find there are card numbers, names, and shit, somewhere in the code - through GOG's negligence, brazenly outdated IT sec practises, or otherwise. Let's maybe share that information to, shall we?
WHAT'S THE HOLDUP? "It's publicly VISIBLE" after all!
This is the logic you guys are attempting right now.
There's a DIFFERENCE between:
A. EXPLICITLY MEANT to be visible. ( cue Steam )
B. Visible. Ambiguous status. ( cue GOG, as well as any accidental data breaches by any random parties online )
You guys FAIL AT LOGIC.
Without OFFICIAL STATEMENT ( provided by Valve, but not by GOG ), we CANNOT prove what was MEANT to be seen and what wasn't.
Furthermore, in NO WAY can we confirm this works the EXACT way some people here BELIEVE it works.
There are NO official publicly visible docs in this regard that I know of.
This is a BLACK BOX, and some of you are choosing to RELY on it BLINDLY - while seeing apparently no difference from Steam's case - which to me is just perplexing.
These aren't even remotely close to "same" cases.
We are talking about "100% confirmed info" vs "a guess AT BEST".
There's a HUMONGOUS difference between:
A. Having a DIRECT CONFIRMATION by platform developer ( Valve ) that the information is EXPLICITLY MEANT to be seen, and works the EXACT specific way ( Steam )
B. Having ZERO OFFICIAL DOCS and making ARBITRARY ASSUMPTIONS on system that may or may not work like you think it doe ( GOG case ).
You are absolutely free to use what you THINK is "GOG ID", but you would be absolute FOOLS to outright RELY on it.
You know what's funny?
There would have been NO PROBLEM if you would use YOUR ID as an example. But no - you are a hypocrite and a provocateur.
If you'd just have used your own ID - none of this anger would take place - I would STILL write what I wrote, that this is indeed UNRELIABLE BLACK BOX design that NONE OF YOU **TRULY** know how it works, you are just making blind ASSUMPTIONS about. I would not be angry.
But no - it would be TOO MUCH for you - if you are so eager to make examples out of people, why won't you make example out of yourself? Oh that's right! You don't operate on COMMON SENSE.
You had ONE JOB - use YOUR OWN ID. You failed.
You reached for a low hanging fruit instead.
I am 99.(9) % certain you did this DELIBERATELY, you KNEW, you REMEMBERED *your* stunt from 3 years ago, and you did this to SPITE me after 3 years from doing EXACT SAME SHIT.
You are incredibly UNPROFESSIONAL and pathetic.
This is information mishandling.
I NEVER CONSENTED to "serve as an EXAMPLE"!
Neither 3 years ago, nor now.
Ethics are very important to me ( enough to become angry over something like this ).
You SHOULD HAVE asked for consent, which you likely wouldn't have gotten.
You could've always ( since 3 years ago, since the very beginning ) used YOURSELF as an example, which wouldn't have led to anything 3 years ago, nor now.
But you LACK the ethics, therefore here we are. Your unethical behaviour has netted you my angry response yet again.
That is a cute cat ~(^__^)~
I deeply appreciate your wholesome attempts <3
That's really cute of you <3
>> Let me make something CRYSTAL CLEAR to everyone in the community. <<
I have ZERO ISSUE with you
Catventurer: I agree with LynXsh. Let's drop the heat level some. Pretty please with kittens on top!
you you
Cavalary: Whoa, tone it down, willya?
This goes past what'd warrant a "this escalated quickly" meme, what was quite clearly a well-meant message provinding a workaround to the raised problem triggering such a vicious tirade...
even with YOU This goes past what'd warrant a "this escalated quickly" meme, what was quite clearly a well-meant message provinding a workaround to the raised problem triggering such a vicious tirade...
Braggadar: By all means, continue endearing yourself to the community by yelling down the keyboard at everyone who crosses your path. I know it worked for me.
which you have MISTAKENLY interpreted as me having an issue with you - believe me - I DON'T. I just happen(ed) to respond to your argumentation in less than patient manner, but alas, have no issue with you. Let alone you ( zero issue at all ),
and pretty much most of all the others in here, I have zero issue or beef with.
My grudge is exclusively towards HIM
and a certain highly unprofessional somebody ( btw, constantly breaking his own rules ) who then took his side, in extreme show of far fetched BIAS and renowned HYPOCRISY, and proceeded to outright ban me from THEN-his-controlled edition of giveaway, back then, because he 'didn't like me pointing out giveaway then-rules to people breaking them', he 'didn't like me writing a lot of text in our private exchanges', and because I did NOT and would NEVER agree with the SHADY "work ethics", but he agreed with, of
Which by the way, despite data loss around the exact same time, I probably do still have somewhere all screenshots of all related PMs with the related parties from back then.
Including, a PM to
all the way back in may 2021, asking him to remove my ID from the then-post ( btw, STILL not removed as of today, and yes, I indeed rechecked to be sure ) - bc MY ID has no business being made example of ( WHY wouldn't he use his own? Think about it ) WITHOUT MY CONSENT. PM which is STILL VISIBLE, yet he 100% ignored it, did not even respond to it at all.
Because he never had "good will" to begin with. This was his blatant provocation to begin with.
Geralt_of_Rivia: That's not correct. To prove such an id exists: Your id is ( REDACTED ). It gets posted on every forum message you write.
When I saw his post recently, I had thoughts akin "Wow, he REALLY HAS a bloody cheek!". Like, holy s**t. You really have to have some real AUDACITY to pull the EXACT SAME STUNT 3 years later - when the case was already filed as "unresolved" ( he ignored my removal request ) and shelved by me - and now you RE-opened it, in a "I DARE YOU" way.
And you know what? This proves my point from 3 years ago PERFECTLY,
YOU
have ZERO WORK ETHICS.
If you see NO PROBLEM sharing such information - you'd THINK you'd LOGICALLY use YOUR OWN ID as an example you are making - but noooo - this isn't YOUR LOGIC.
No no, it's best to make an example of someone else. PERFECT LOGIC am I right?
You are a COWARD, a HYPOCRITE, and UNPROFESSIONAL.
In a high security facility workplace, you would get FIRED over something like this, or worse.
But this is the internet, and especially a hypocritical forum so you probably assumed "tHiS iS gOg sO NoOnE wIlL CaRe".
You are PATHETIC. Get a life.
And most importantly, I wish you to never work in IT field, and that you never find your way into said industry, you would be an inside job or a 'security breach through negligence ( or EGO tripping )' waiting to happen.
...
He... FLAILS information around. Information HE HIMSELF cannot PROVE with 100% certainty was MEANT by GOG to be seen at all.
When confronted about this fact, he either runs away from the conversation ( cue ignoring PMs ), or rubs it in and doubles down.
To nobody's surprise ( at least not to people who have been around "all kinds of places on the internet" ) there tends to be 1+ person who takes his side blindly, outright failing at common sense.
I am a PROFESSIONAL ( not to be confused with TEMPER ), and I would LIKE all people to be professional too.
A case of "this isn't correct, let me make example out of YOUR INFORMATION, information that I CANNOT prove was even meant to be seen" is NOWHERE NEAR professional.
It's in fact a provocation attempt, rage bait. Testing people's patience, logic and morals - which admittedly - plenty of people lack, and they blatantly take his side by misreading the situation and failing at logic.
Hey, let's dig deeper into GOG's insecure backend, maybe we will someday find there are card numbers, names, and shit, somewhere in the code - through GOG's negligence, brazenly outdated IT sec practises, or otherwise. Let's maybe share that information to, shall we?
WHAT'S THE HOLDUP? "It's publicly VISIBLE" after all!
This is the logic you guys are attempting right now.
There's a DIFFERENCE between:
A. EXPLICITLY MEANT to be visible. ( cue Steam )
B. Visible. Ambiguous status. ( cue GOG, as well as any accidental data breaches by any random parties online )
You guys FAIL AT LOGIC.
Without OFFICIAL STATEMENT ( provided by Valve, but not by GOG ), we CANNOT prove what was MEANT to be seen and what wasn't.
Furthermore, in NO WAY can we confirm this works the EXACT way some people here BELIEVE it works.
There are NO official publicly visible docs in this regard that I know of.
This is a BLACK BOX, and some of you are choosing to RELY on it BLINDLY - while seeing apparently no difference from Steam's case - which to me is just perplexing.
These aren't even remotely close to "same" cases.
We are talking about "100% confirmed info" vs "a guess AT BEST".
There's a HUMONGOUS difference between:
A. Having a DIRECT CONFIRMATION by platform developer ( Valve ) that the information is EXPLICITLY MEANT to be seen, and works the EXACT specific way ( Steam )
B. Having ZERO OFFICIAL DOCS and making ARBITRARY ASSUMPTIONS on system that may or may not work like you think it doe ( GOG case ).
You are absolutely free to use what you THINK is "GOG ID", but you would be absolute FOOLS to outright RELY on it.
You know what's funny?
There would have been NO PROBLEM if you would use YOUR ID as an example. But no - you are a hypocrite and a provocateur.
If you'd just have used your own ID - none of this anger would take place - I would STILL write what I wrote, that this is indeed UNRELIABLE BLACK BOX design that NONE OF YOU **TRULY** know how it works, you are just making blind ASSUMPTIONS about. I would not be angry.
But no - it would be TOO MUCH for you - if you are so eager to make examples out of people, why won't you make example out of yourself? Oh that's right! You don't operate on COMMON SENSE.
You had ONE JOB - use YOUR OWN ID. You failed.
You reached for a low hanging fruit instead.
I am 99.(9) % certain you did this DELIBERATELY, you KNEW, you REMEMBERED *your* stunt from 3 years ago, and you did this to SPITE me after 3 years from doing EXACT SAME SHIT.
You are incredibly UNPROFESSIONAL and pathetic.
This is information mishandling.
I NEVER CONSENTED to "serve as an EXAMPLE"!
Neither 3 years ago, nor now.
Ethics are very important to me ( enough to become angry over something like this ).
You SHOULD HAVE asked for consent, which you likely wouldn't have gotten.
You could've always ( since 3 years ago, since the very beginning ) used YOURSELF as an example, which wouldn't have led to anything 3 years ago, nor now.
But you LACK the ethics, therefore here we are. Your unethical behaviour has netted you my angry response yet again.
That is a cute cat ~(^__^)~
I deeply appreciate your wholesome attempts <3
That's really cute of you <3