Clickboxer - new key broadcasting software

[Lax]

There are some pretty good arguments against your statements, but I will ask you if you feel that an act of Lavish Software is an act of me, Joe Thaler, as an individual (note that I have employees who also act for Lavish Software). If not, then why is an act of me, Joe Thaler, automatically an act of Lavish Software? I have also held other jobs while owning Lavish, do my other jobs count as being Lavish?

For the same reason that people will critize Microsoft for a action made by Bill Gates. For the same reason that people will critize Microsoft for an action made by me (as an employee of Microsoft). For this reason, I am required to sign a quite comprehensive contract on what I can, and cannot say (and do) inside and outside of Microsoft.

If Bill Gates were to be involved in some scandalous activity involving the computer industry, would people not also critize Microsoft (particularly because of his vast influence on the company)?

Like it or not you are a representative of your company. And like it or not, you have been responsible for your own soiled reputation, which in turn is soiling your company's (howevermuch you're trying to seperate the two for reasons of legalese). It's not a hard concept why you are receiving such a large amount of mistrust and criticism regardless of your product's merits (or lack thereof). You've earned it.

I never said I'm not a representative of my company, I said the product is not a Lavish Software product, and that is what we were discussing. I am not asking why some people don't trust me, as I explained I fully understand and expect it to continue, and I had the SAME conversations with people years ago, and the dual-boxing.com mods have told me that the SAME treatment is given to anyone "new" to these forums talking about their applications. I truly hope that you do not think you are telling me something new.

[jrichard]

Then question if you're so honest.

Are you, your company, or any company or group that you affiliate with currently working on a new version of an extension or program for IS or any new version or replacement program for IS that has as at least one of it's features the ability to avoid warden detection?

[Lax]

Then question if you're so honest.

Are you, your company, or any company or group that you affiliate with currently working on a new version of an extension or program for IS or any new version or replacement program for IS that has as at least one of it's features the ability to avoid warden detection?

No. I am not working on anything that needs the ability to avoid Warden detection, and ISXWarden is being withheld on advice from my legal counsel (not because of any perceived issues with detection) -- why would I do that but work on something new that does the same thing, given that? That would defeat the purpose of withholding ISXWarden in the first place.

If you think I am working on something to that effect, or a company or group I'm affiliated with is, I'd love to hear what it is and who it is developing it. As it is I will assume this is an honest question and not an accusation that would involve some sort of evidence, but if I'm assuming wrong then by all means, love to hear it. But it is pretty accusingly stated.

[jrichard]

It was an honest question and not an accusation. However, i asked if you were working on anything that will HAVE the ability, not that NEEDS it.

[Lax]

It was an honest question and not an accusation. However, i asked if you were working on anything that will HAVE the ability, not that NEEDS it.

The first word of my post was "No." and then I additionally implied the answer was no, in the form of the question that followed:

ISXWarden is being withheld on advice from my legal counsel (not because of any perceived issues with detection) -- why would I do that but work on something new that does the same thing, given that? That would defeat the purpose of withholding ISXWarden in the first place.

If I had simply replied and said "No" would you believe it? Does the above help reinforce the point?

[Vyndree]

I never said I'm not a representative of my company, I said the product is not a Lavish Software product, and that is what we were discussing.

Actually... this is what you asked in your post. (which I quoted in my response in case you missed it)

There are some pretty good arguments against your statements, but I will ask you if you feel that an act of Lavish Software is an act of me, Joe Thaler, as an individual (note that I have employees who also act for Lavish Software). If not, then why is an act of me, Joe Thaler, automatically an act of Lavish Software?

And that, is what I answered.

If you didn't want a response, don't post the question.

the dual-boxing.com mods have told me that the SAME treatment is given to anyone "new" to these forums talking about their applications.

I wouldn't say so. How many mods have you spoken with? Have you spoken with any product developers, such as Skarlot (Octopus) or Freddie (HKN)?

As a mod myself, I would say that while there are plenty outspoken fans of Keyclone, we don't typically see this muchproduct criticism on these boards. No, I would say this case is relatively unique. Neither Freddie nor Skarlot have any known cases of breaking the WoW ToU/Eula prior to, during, or after programming their respective products -- much less the repute that you have.

[Lax]

I never said I'm not a representative of my company, I said the product is not a Lavish Software product, and that is what we were discussing.

Actually... this is what you asked in your post. (which I quoted in my response in case you missed it)

There are some pretty good arguments against your statements, but I will ask you if you feel that an act of Lavish Software is an act of me, Joe Thaler, as an individual (note that I have employees who also act for Lavish Software). If not, then why is an act of me, Joe Thaler, automatically an act of Lavish Software?

And that, is what I answered.

In the context of programs written, marketed and distributed by Lavish Software versus programs written, marketed and distributed separately of Lavish Software by Joe Thaler. Yes, we could go on about this all day, I apologize for not being more specific in those particular lines of my post.

[Vyndree]

In the context of programs written, marketed and distributed by Lavish Software versus programs written, marketed and distributed separately of Lavish Software by Joe Thaler.

And I gave you an appropriate analogy. Bill Gates actions' reflect on Microsoft just as much as Joe Thaler's actions reflect on Lavish Soft.

In either case, the actions of the figurehead reflect on the company, and vice versa.

The specifics don't change my response.

[Lax]

In the context of programs written, marketed and distributed by Lavish Software versus programs written, marketed and distributed separately of Lavish Software by Joe Thaler.

And I gave you an appropriate analogy. Bill Gates actions' reflect on Microsoft just as much as Joe Thaler's actions reflect on Lavish Soft.

In either case, the actions of the figurehead reflect on the company, and vice versa.

The specifics don't change my response.

Your analogy does not apply. If Bill Gates writes, markets and distributes "Billy Bob.exe" on billybobgates.com web site, it does not make it written, marketed, or distributed by Microsoft.

[jrichard]

It was an honest question and not an accusation. However, i asked if you were working on anything that will HAVE the ability, not that NEEDS it.

The first word of my post was "No." and then I additionally implied the answer was no, in the form of the question that followed:

ISXWarden is being withheld on advice from my legal counsel (not because of any perceived issues with detection) -- why would I do that but work on something new that does the same thing, given that? That would defeat the purpose of withholding ISXWarden in the first place.

If I had simply replied and said "No" would you believe it? Does the above help reinforce the point?

You said no, then qualified that answer, then asked a question. If you had simply said no i would be satisfied. But when i look at your response i see nothing except evasion. You're the one who hurts your own credibility. Your answers are slick and well prepared, try honest short and succint sometime. Even the next to last line of that post doesn't actually simply say no, it asks another question without actually saying anything. To answer your last question, YES, everything about that post tells me all i need to know about using your software.