Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 3845894" data-attributes="member: 18280">No, like saying someone put a link to &quot;Proof of WotC lying&quot; when they are responding to an allegedly &quot;conclusive&quot; proof that WotC did not lie about the 4e release.When EN World reported the imminent announcement of 4e, either one has to believe that WotC emailed Eric Noah, saying the info is so wrong that the WotC rep suspected that his source was out to torpedo Eric's reputation by giving him something &quot;this far off the mark&quot;, or you have to believe that Eric is lying.Of this material, only &quot;A plan to possibly sell off RPGs entirely&quot; seems, in retrospect, to be wrong.&nbsp; So, we are stuck with either that last bit making Eric's info so far off the mark as to seem like someone trying to torpedo his reputation, or we can believe that WotC was less than forthcoming -- indeed, intentionally deceptive -- when they emailed him.Therefore my post:Far from saying I had conclusive proof that WotC was lying, I invited others to examine the evidence for themselves, and asked for the conclusive proof that WotC had not lied, which (apparently) is on some other (as yet undisclosed) thread.It is clear that I believe that WotC did lie.&nbsp; It ought to be easy enough for others to make up their minds when presented with what evidence exists.&nbsp; And, clearly, not everyone will agree with me.&nbsp; That's okay.&nbsp; But don't say &quot;I have conclusive proof that you are wrong&quot; unless you are willing to share that proof.RC</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Raven Crowking, post: 3845894, member: 18280"] No, like saying someone put a link to "Proof of WotC lying" when they are responding to an allegedly "conclusive" proof that WotC did not lie about the 4e release. When EN World reported the imminent announcement of 4e, either one has to believe that WotC emailed Eric Noah, saying the info is so wrong that the WotC rep suspected that his source was out to torpedo Eric's reputation by giving him something "this far off the mark", or you have to believe that Eric is lying. Of this material, only "A plan to possibly sell off RPGs entirely" seems, in retrospect, to be wrong. So, we are stuck with either that last bit making Eric's info so far off the mark as to seem like someone trying to torpedo his reputation, or we can believe that WotC was less than forthcoming -- indeed, intentionally deceptive -- when they emailed him. Therefore my post: Far from saying I had conclusive proof that WotC was lying, I invited others to examine the evidence for themselves, and asked for the conclusive proof that WotC had not lied, which (apparently) is on some other (as yet undisclosed) thread. It is clear that I believe that WotC did lie. It ought to be easy enough for others to make up their minds when presented with what evidence exists. And, clearly, not everyone will agree with me. That's okay. But don't say "I have conclusive proof that you are wrong" unless you are willing to share that proof. RC [/QUOTE]

Verification