So What is Plan Z?

Now you know how us atheists feel each and every single day. *sigh*

That was an extremely bad example to be agreeing with. In her example, the person finally just decided they were going to be disagreeable by stating the opposite of the current opinion. It'd be like if you went to a church, let them talk about god for a while, then announced loudly "God isn't real." Yes, there is going to be a fallout over that.

Actually the support ticket was just an information gathering step. I seriously did not expect to use it to actually start negotiations. Those tickets fire off an email to a company employee. Doing so with the expectation that it would go to a Paragon Studio employee and one that had connections to several internal departments (which customer support normally needs to operate effectively) was the intent. Especially if that employee was looking for any chance, no matter how remote, to save his/her job. When that employee can't even direct you to a web portal, identify a department, or give a name, that's pretty strange. Even a "Call the corporate office" would have been a reasonable reply. It's one way to bypass the company operator.

No. I wasn't being lazy, stupid, or incompetent. I was taking advantage of my general knowledge of corporate operations.

qft

Except I don't do that. I don't go into their churches and announce how silly I think their beliefs are. No, they come knocking on my door, or bothering me while I'm at work, or trying to eat, or any of the other things that everyone else does in their daily life where it's otherwise not OK to be bothered by total strangers. But what they're doing is OK because... why? No one's actually ever answered that one!

So, there you go!

Which is completely different from the given example. And where do you live, exactly? I lived most of my life in the middle of the Bible Belt NC in a small town with a church on every corner and the most I ever got was a couple of Gehova's witnesses.

To handle this delicately, why should it bother you to politely send them away? They are doing what they think is best. Yes, it runs counter to your beliefs, but it does not change or infringe on them. They are not harming you in anyway. So yes. It is okay. You could always put a sign up out front if it bothers you that much.

Ahh, then you showed your naivity. The City of Hero GM's are NCsoft employees. They always have been as well.

But just wondering, did you actually try to go any further or did you actually stop at this stage?

Because looking at the information you have told us, you just gave up.

no no coyote had it but your example is a bit off. Your example sounds like "Oh I can have my views but anyone that disagrees is doing it just to disagree." Why cant it be that that they may not have the same view as you and just as much as the church person have a right to say there is a god, why cant someone froma different walk of life say there isnt a god? I have yet to come across two people who have the exact same thoughts, exact same experiencwe, exact same views, exact same way of thinking, even twins, have slight differences of likes, wants desires and etc. So why is it seem like an odd concept that someone may not believe in the exact same thing as you or your friends? And when they do why is it only because they are doing just to disagree? Are they not able to form views about the world as you? How did you form your view? Someone told you what to think, how to think, when to think?? Or is it from the experience of the world, what you have come across, what you have gathered and most importantly how you percieve your world around you?


This isnt church. this is public forum and basicially what has happened here with the closing of the game and not because they just disagreeing with them to be disagreeing with them and not saying the opposite any louder than what the other person said. This is like someone coming into a public place and sayign that god is real over and over again and finally someone just says, Well ma'am I dont think god exist. And the the god believer acts all offended and start name calling and damnation and brimestone. And the other person takes same position and back and forth. The nthe god believer states they are tired of being attacked by non-belivers when if looking at the situtation if they havent even said anythign about god, no one would even brought the subject up. Yet fail to see that people are tired of them in the same way about saying god is real. But bring a subject up often enough someone will talk about it and not everyone may agree.

Maybe he is maybe he aint.

Maybe the plan z will succeed maybe it wont.

Maybe Santa exists maybe not.

But either way, just as there is nothing wrong and dont want people acting like there is nothign wrong with believing, the other side of that would like that too instead of people acting like there is something wrong for not believing.

See about two things can happen. Either we can spend the rest of time arquing who shot first and who started it for the last 19 days and whos' right and who's wrong and how much should someone hope or what is too much hope and who is not hoping enough and etc go down the same path we are going. Which is a choice but if that is the path then "why" should no longer be a question. Or we can learn to respect each other view without trying to get people to either believe in the hope or not believe in the hope and at least have some semblemce of the good ol days of this forum before it's gone for good. But this is a choice that takes two sides, and I'm fine either way.

Originally Posted by mauk2 Evil_Legacy became one of my favorite posters with two words. "Kick Rocks." I laffed so hard. Never change, E_L!

That's kind of hard to do when that person is your supervisor. :P

I kinda get harassed for not believing in their god. There's not much I can really do about it tho. I've gotten rather good at ignoring them, but... you know, I really shouldn't have to do that.

Senge's Ladder of Inference model explains this well enough. We all have biases. You are no different in "adding meaning" to observable facts than I am, we just derive different meaning based on our bias.

My example was a literal example of YOUR example, so there you go.

After re-reading the original "Santa Claus" post, this response of yours here makes no sense to me whatsoever.

basically.

Originally Posted by mauk2 Evil_Legacy became one of my favorite posters with two words. "Kick Rocks." I laffed so hard. Never change, E_L!

Actually I have evidence and information that the channel was more appropriate than most. Knowledge of company support structures was sufficient to this decision.

Not having to support your accusation? The word for that is "arrogant". And that is not ad hominem. Refusal of accountability is evidence of excessive self-importance. It undermines the credibility of your claims. In this case you simply exposed your ignorance.

I disagree. An opinion made by an intelligent and educated person and based on experience, knowledge and the facts at hand is better than an opinion based on ignorance, assumption, superstition, and knee-jerk reaction. Both may "add meaning" to their observations, but I'd give more credence to the former and probably none at all to the later.

Which is why willing to admit when one's certainty about the validity of their perceptions is not necessary absolute is a good thing to be prepared for.

Look, I'm sure you are a swell guy. I doubt some of your credentials are entirely accurate but then again, we all market ourselves professionally and there's nothing wrong with pumping up our business image in the name of positive spin.

What I will say is that unless your approach was part of some overly-complex, Rube Goldberg-esque M&A scheme, I can't imagine that 1 person in a million with anything more than a high school diploma would consider that an appropriate approach to initiating contact with a major corporation for the purposes of making an investment inquiry. As pointed out by others, sending a certified letter to any of the addresses listed on their Investor Relations would have given you documentation of a credible inquiry.

And -IF- this WAS part of your Master Plan, I'd love to hear the rest of it. This could be a really great story!

Actually I have no problem with my name out in the open. I haven't updated my LinkedIn profile in ages and I was pretty lazy about my profile information when I created it. And I actually have two. A business and personal one. Same as Twitter and Facebook. And I've lost count of my email addresses.

Those social sites typically only reveal what the person decides to submit.

True, but opt-in social profile information also allows cross-indexing via darknet information sources to reveal current and past addresses, property tax assessments, insurance information, marriage/divorce, legal proceedings, past known employment, education/degrees earned/schools attended, countries lived in before current residency, family members, armed forces service for both self and family, some travel information, etc. And that's before even going into law enforcement background checks.

In other words....there's no such thing as "unverifiable facts" in today's world. You just need access to the right tools....and a little time and interest.

After a quick analysis from some, admittedly, limited information it looked like CoX was a profitable operation (a fact later established as true from other sources). I was working on rather late notice and didn't want to lose a chance to make a purchase. I figured that other organizations had at least the same information I did - maybe better. I hadn't been on for about a month or two because of other obligations. Got on. Had a problem. Started a support ticket. As I was pondering my issue I was also reflecting on the matter of getting in contact. Had an "aha!" moment when I realized the path those support tickets took. And given the excellent support system of Paragon Studios I had even more confidence than normal about those internal channels. I've used channels of communication for mixed issues before - I suspect we all have - and I figured the best I could expect was "go here" as a response. It would have been a brush-off but it would still been a definite response within the parameters of customer support (and it was a legitimate support issue believe it or not). I thought about calling NC Soft directly but I was uncomfortable with possible language barriers. I was just seeking a good State-side contact. Just "seat of the pants" thinking. The kind of thing that happens if you have to act quickly without being able to do the normal research. It does make for an amusing story though. Still an honest attempt to contact the company about a purchase. Sometimes crazy pays off. In this case it paid off with some intriguing info even if that wasn't intended. My conclusion about the response has been supported since by other sources. I trust my intuition even if it leads me on odd paths.

Yep. I've actually done one of those BG checks online. Paid for it. Several sites in fact. I found the same erroneous information consistently. Some of it did not make me happy to have there. My first and last name are too common. I've thought about legal action, but I think the Goliath of Intellius is more than I can handle at the moment (I suspect they are the source of many of the issues).

Nobody pays for that stuff unless they don't know how to access the original sources of record. The pay "check out your blind date" services are often incorrect as they rely on tertiary (or worse) sources of data for their own databases. The original sources, particularly when kept as part of legal and/or financial transactions, are highly accurate. Again...just have to know where to look.

Thank you. Those words are well appreciated.

Actually that's part of why I even started posting on this forum. Damage control. That's why I sent my rebuke in both directions. I know feelings are running pretty high right now. I didn't really care to have to throw out any bone fides but I was looking to establish some amount of credibility quickly even if I came out sounding larger than life. I'd rather my work to speak for itself and not come off sounding like a pompous braggart.

I did it to check out the poor resources as those were the ones the "average joe" is most likely to use. I wanted to know what kind of future damage control was needed. I had a rather nasty personal experience (mentioned elsewhere in this thread) and it's had some other consequences as well. Unfortunately life goes on and I just have to deal with these things as I am able.