Quote Originally Posted by 'Vyndree',index.php?page=Thread&postID=136291#post 136291
Clarification. From your responses, it wasn't clear whether you were agreeing or disagreeing with my standpoint, as many of your statements were largely circular.

So I simply laid out the facts I got from your ambiguous paragraph, and asked if that was indeed the point you were making.


As for whether or not you were involved with Glider -- I think my point is still the same. To the consumer, I would consider the owner of a company to be the representative of the company. You consider the legal seperation between your actions and your companies to be the defining factor. Thus my further information on why I believe that to be an incorrect assumption because the issue is with reputation -- not legality.

In any case, you inferred that "involvement" meant legal involvement. I intended no such inference.

However, as you say "you don't care" to change my opinion (or others who question your reliability) -- and I feel that is a critical error if that is your business model. Upkeep of yours, and your company's reputation and a emphasis on consumer trust should be an important goal for any company. But, in the end, that's your choice.
Okay, except that there is no way for me to change my reputation by posting on dual-boxing.com, that is something that is earned over time. Therefore, my posts are intending to educate, not magically change your opinion of whether you would want to trust my company's software. I have already mentioned that I believe that perception will be changing over the next few months. If that is somehow circular and ambiguous let me know.

I inferred that "heavy" as in "heavily involved" meant "significant", as in my company had some significant involvement with MDY. In response, I detailed the extent of my involvement, and explained that there is no "heavy" involvement. You on the other hand are making it about whether it is about Lavish or myself, due to those 2 lines of my post, and whether that would tarnish Lavish's reputation. I made no claim that it had no effect on Lavish's reputation, but yes I did specify that it is an important distinction. Yes, I was implying in that statement a legal distinction, not a reputational distinction.

We've already established that you don't like my reputation, and I have already established that I cannot change your opinion. It would take someone else entirely to do that, and there is nothing that I can say here right now that will change your mind, so why should I focus on changing your mind (in other words, I don't care to sit here and try to change your opinion, or any other individual's opinion, as paraphrased)? Reputation has nothing to do with getting banned, which is what the majority of the replies on this thread have been about. Getting banned is supposed to be about the Terms of Service.

What I am intending to do, what you are calling a critical flaw, is fixing the misinformation. If people are making posts that are untrue, then it does me a disservice, but you are free to have your own opinion on my reputation, and I suspect that the people who do not see it the same as you are the people who will end up trying it first. Eventually, your perception of my company may change due to the people around you that choose to use the software, and what their opinion is. After all, your opinion is very likely to already be based on exactly that. The people around you and what their opinion is.

Are you following me now, or is this circular? Do we need to keep going on about reputation or are we going to get back on point? I have been trying to keep this discussion NOT about reputation, because that comes over time.