Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="mamba" data-source="post: 9108706" data-attributes="member: 7034611">no, I have a reason, I just did not tell you which one. I'd say by now I have two, since you keep avoiding answering what you claim is really simple to know, despite you supposedly having given it some thoughtHow is saying that a threshold is binary nonsense? Still avoiding saying anything definitive about that second threshold too. How about you tell me what it is, instead of one example for what it supposedly isn't? You are not making a good case for you having looked into this at all...So what is the second threshold good for? You do not need two to decide what makes it in and what doesn't, do you? Esp. when you play loose with that one, as we already established WotC does... It cannot be the range between them that makes it in, that would be utter nonsense, so....I already said that I do not claim they lied, not sure why you keep repeating that. Also not sure why you cannot repeat what JC said, despite having been asked about the thresholds 6 times by now, if you agree that that is what they are for.I have argued that there is a flaw, that does not at all say that what they are doing is not exactly what they say they are doing, let alone that they intentionally lied. All it does is say they do so with unreliable data.That seems to apply to all of this, quite franklyNo, but my standard is not, if you failed this big once, that counts as you never made a mistake. Yours apparently is, or at a minimum 'don't know and do not care either', which already is pretty pathetic as an answerWhat was this supposed to prove? Guess your answer to that must also be 'I do not know or care', because I'd say it very much did. You even admitted itthat is what it was supposed to prove, that is all it was supposed to prove. It has no direct bearing on WotC, other than to counter your 'they are big, so they do not ever make mistakes' narrative.</blockquote>

Verification