So, basically, "B".
And for the record, I originally only asked him three times. I first asked him to cite the cases (that's one), where he then claimed he was having trouble finding them. I questioned him on the fact that he couldn't cite the cases (that's two), to which he again reiterated that he couldn't find them and was going off memory. So, giving him the benefit of the doubt, I then asked him for any details he could remember about the cases (that's three) - because, why would you remember the outcome of a case, but not remember something like who was involved or what it was over? TJ then responded to a lengthy post that was made after mine by another member - and made no effort to address my simple question asking for clarification on his claim about the existence of previous cases.
I *could* have let it go then. A bigger man probably would have. But this is after, multiple times in that very thread, that TJ just skipped over any points he just couldn't say something against.
Like when I asked about CurtDogg's Backlogg. TJ said that was different, because he/NWR isn't making money on it. I pointed out that they were, because they're making money from ads on the site where it's shown. TJ then said *that* was different, because CD/NWR is making money on ads from the advertising company - which is "a shady area, but not as bad as the LP." I pointed out that making money from ads is the EXACT SAME THING that LP's do and the ENTIRE basis of this whole deal between Nintendo/YouTube/Let's Players.
TJ then continues to try and make his argument, but makes ZERO effort to address his VERY ON contradiction. Doesn't even acknowledge it.
Now, *that* is based on his opinion. So, whatever - TJ has a conflicting opinion about something. It's his opinion and his right to do so. Even if it makes no sense.
But when TJ started citing facts from these "past cases", then I should have the right to question him. If he's going to present historical data as a fact to back up his opinion, then he should have to let everyone see that same historical data. Who knows, I might read it and agree with him! I mean, we're talking about the outcome of a court case, after all. Not much to debate there.
If you say "Dude, don't eat that Big Mac. It sucks.", then I'm not going to press you too much on your opinion. If you say "Dude, don't eat that Big Mac! McDonald's uses ground up babies for the meat!", then yes, I'm going to press you for some kind of evidence.
Now, mind you, this is all after TJ came on here, calling someone just flat out crude and horrible names because he misread an article she wrote - and still hasn't apologized for it or admitted that he was wrong (in fact, I think he's still under the belief that he's in the right about that).
Topic: Umm... Hey, TJ.... (Read 11541 times)
