contact
February 19, 2019, 02:56:22 AM

Author Topic: Player admits to having cheated, is cheating again.  (Read 4732 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Swanvesta

  • Member
  • Posts: 818
    • View Profile
Re: Player admits to having cheated, is cheating again.
« Reply #30 on: January 09, 2011, 12:33:07 PM »
you forget that every browser have the ability to proxy ip's, and no if u do a lookup, the trace will go to the host machine being used as the front..

for example

player a has ip 127.0.0.1 and is located in the US (example dont shoot me for it being local host)

he opens his browser, looks into the settings, then runs off to the internet, finds a free proxy using the correct port, enters the information into his browser.

when the session is opened by connecting via said proxy to the BFG servers.. player a now has the ip 198.212.12.145 and is now located in russia

he can then use his original ip in another browser, and still be in america .. and in nearly every support ticket that has been handled by jason which has been turned down, and some from john, they have clearly stated, "they are not sharing the same IP".

edited coz i felt bad about adding john into this.. he has been very informative, and supportive at all times, and on some occasions so has Jason. No support bashing from me, although i may not like their methods against cheating, they have always been respectful and tried to help. and they just ignore me when im in a bad mood, which helps :D
« Last Edit: January 01, 1970, 12:00:00 AM by Guest »
Miss Kiki: Believe me I have been well warned about you
Miss Kiki: I think it was stated that Swan is the biggest nut job in the SFC game community

Biggest nut job on SFC - I claim it!

Offline Big S

  • Member
  • Posts: 2450
    • View Profile
Re: Player admits to having cheated, is cheating again.
« Reply #31 on: January 11, 2011, 10:11:23 PM »
Quote from: "Swanvesta"
you forget that every browser have the ability to proxy ip's, and no if u do a lookup, the trace will go to the host machine being used as the front..
You are still making a theoretical argument. The argument that the second IP is from a proxy. And if you have ever worked in support of this nature, you know that figuring out that a particular IP is a proxy isn't that hard. If the player can find the IP of a public proxy server, it's not too hard for support to also look it up and find that it is in fact a proxy host, which would be virtually 100% proof positive it is the same person trying to cheat.

I do give Jason and John some credit here, because the nature of the topic is really that trivial. I guess you don't.
« Last Edit: January 01, 1970, 12:00:00 AM by Guest »
Quote from: \"Evan Woodard\"
I\'m pretty sure that\'s just D-baggery.

Offline Swanvesta

  • Member
  • Posts: 818
    • View Profile
Re: Player admits to having cheated, is cheating again.
« Reply #32 on: January 11, 2011, 11:43:22 PM »
its hypothetical not theoretical,

the truth is, i CAN proxy my ip and that would nullify the statements given by support "they are not sharing the same IP" and do u seriously expect the support team to go and do vigorous searches every time someone tickets they think they found a cheat?

it would take more hours then they have in a day. especially since u can pay to have private proxies, and the web is a very big place. So no i do not expect that they packet sniff, to decode the en-capsulised information, which is what is required to force this issue out into the open

to dismiss the idea without any grounding? on the basis of a word you dont even know the meaning to? shows how little experience you have.
« Last Edit: January 01, 1970, 12:00:00 AM by Guest »
Miss Kiki: Believe me I have been well warned about you
Miss Kiki: I think it was stated that Swan is the biggest nut job in the SFC game community

Biggest nut job on SFC - I claim it!

Offline Big S

  • Member
  • Posts: 2450
    • View Profile
Re: Player admits to having cheated, is cheating again.
« Reply #33 on: January 12, 2011, 05:06:16 AM »
Quote from: "Swanvesta"
its hypothetical not theoretical,

the truth is, i CAN proxy my ip and that would nullify the statements given by support "they are not sharing the same IP" and do u seriously expect the support team to go and do vigorous searches every time someone tickets they think they found a cheat?

it would take more hours then they have in a day. especially since u can pay to have private proxies, and the web is a very big place. So no i do not expect that they packet sniff, to decode the en-capsulised information, which is what is required to force this issue out into the open

to dismiss the idea without any grounding? on the basis of a word you dont even know the meaning to? shows how little experience you have.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but "theoretical" is precisely the word I meant to use.

You do realize that hypothesize and theorize are different words that have very similar but subtly different meanings? Theorizing is more akin to speculation, and hypothesizing is more akin to assumption, typically in such a way that the assumption(s) can be tested for validity or rendered false by logical contradiction.

Theoretical:
1 b : confined to theory or speculation often in contrast to practical applications : speculative

[BTW, you misspelled "en-capsulised" and have some grammatical issues with capitalization, "u" is not a real word, and I think you meant found a "cheater" not "cheat". I can be a grammar critic too if you really want to go down that road.]

Your arguments for the most part are strictly speculative in nature, have no ability to be tested and are therefore more theories than hypotheses, hence my choice of words. You are speculating that a proxy is being used. You are speculating that support hasn't done a WHOIS on the IP, hasn't and won't ever look into seeing if it is a proxy (which takes VERY LITTLE time, BTW), and that the data that support did review is being incorrectly interpreted as conclusive when it should instead be discarded as inconclusive. It's all speculation on your part. Support hasn't explained their reasoning to you, therefore you are spinning theory to support your continued claim. You have zero proof that is what is happening.

Conversely, a hypothetical argument is more along the lines of crafting made up scenarios to prove a point, as in creating hypothetical scenarios, which is a better description of this latest argument of yours, that you are now making. See definition. Your latest answer descends into creating a hypothetical scenario where a person could use a private proxy, etc, etc. all in order to prove it is possible to fool support, therefore we should assume guilt because it is hypothetically possible. That's a hypothetical argument. A similar use of a hypothetical is to make a set of assumptions (usually the opposite of what you want to prove), apply logic to the assumptions, and show that a contradiction or impossibility results, therefore the assumptions must be false.

Do you really want to try to change the argument into a lesson on definitions? Or can you just stick to the point? Or maybe you can't, because you don't really have any proof.

Again, explaining the difference in context to tear down your latest response, your are theorizing, i.e. speculating, that support doesn't have enough time in the day to look into these issues, therefore they haven't looked into this one. And you are hypothesizing that it could be easy to fool support if one wanted to using a private proxy. Isn't this fun?

Also getting back on point, no one needs to go into the server room, turn on port mirroring on a top of rack ethernet switch, hook up their PC, start up Wireshark, etc. (since I guess your latest tack is to try to show me you know a little technical jargon about sniffing, when packet capture is the correct term). Besides, if you knew how proxies work, you'd understand that the encapsulated packets (if you are using a proxy type that actually uses encapsulation, such as SOCKS5, as opposed to other proxy technologies that don't use encapsulation) are between proxy and proxy client or web browser. From proxy to web server it is non-encapsulated HTTP. Duh. Therefore "sniffing" would accomplish exactly nothing. Ironically, one of the common proxy protocols, SOCKS, was written by a guy I actually KNOW and work with....Marcus Leech, of BNR which was one of the R&D divisions of Nortel. If there is any further education you would like to receive from me on HTTP/SOCKS/etc proxies, don't hesitate to ask. I'm happy to further your understanding. For example, it is a common understanding that proxies operate at the Application layer of the OSI model, and like many other gateway technologies are designed to be transparent to the server. Which is why you don't detect proxies by "sniffing". You detect them by a little homework to understand that the source IP is in fact a proxy server. And that isn't that hard to figure out, if you know what you are looking for. Tools exist, such as proxy scanners, as well as more crude and manual tools, such as port mappers. And ironically, the very thing that allows a person to use it allows a support person to figure out that the IP in question is coming from a proxy server within a matter of a COUPLE minutes of investigation. If you doubt this, then explain how you think this would take more hours than a day has. Please. I'm dying to know.

Since you want to quibble about definitions, can't even get the technology straight about how proxies work, I assume you have nothing further to add to this conversation.

I don't dismiss the fact that a particularly clever and resourceful person COULD cheat if they wanted to. I dismiss your theory that is what is happening here, unless you have something more than your personal theory (i.e. speculation) about this case to rely on. Now if you prefer to dismiss my perspective because you falsely think I'm using the wrong word, then by all means, do so. I really don't care if you can't consult a dictionary to see that I used the precise word to convey the exact meaning I wanted to, or that you can't consult a thesaurus to discover that hypothetical and theoretical are actually synonyms of each other.
« Last Edit: January 01, 1970, 12:00:00 AM by Guest »
Quote from: \"Evan Woodard\"
I\'m pretty sure that\'s just D-baggery.

Offline Swanvesta

  • Member
  • Posts: 818
    • View Profile
Re: Player admits to having cheated, is cheating again.
« Reply #34 on: January 12, 2011, 08:26:50 AM »
ok for starters..i like how you picked the one definition out there which supported your claim and didnt want to state the others

the o ret i cal/Adjective
Based on or calculated through theory rather than experience or practice: a theoretical reformer of opinions

hy po thet i cal  
[hahy-puh-thet-i-kuhl]
–adjective
1.
assumed by hypothesis; supposed: a hypothetical case.
2.
of, pertaining to, involving, or characterized by hypothesis: hypothetical reasoning.


My "ideas" are based on the actual evidence of being sent support answers, yes i did hypothesize the rest, because like you rightly stated, behind the answer i do not know for sure what is going on. The rest of my statement again was from practical experience, as i have used these proxies to hide my IP many times. So this is not theory, although alot is assumed.

based on that, the actual word, is hypothetical. and i had this discussion just the other day about my use of abbreviation, so your smart becoz u take twice as long to type, well if u wish to waste your life typing out essays go for it, i prefer to write on the spur of the moment and not care to much about the way it looks its called efficiency.

Secondly, the usage of the word cheat is grammatically correct the way i wrote it, just because the rest of the world likes to bastardise the English language doesnt mean i have to go along with it. I guess you are going to say addicting is actually an accurate word too right? no its addictive addicted or addiction. damn Americans!

hxxp://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cheat

and finally...

all data that is sent via a network is encapsulated.. or are you trying to suggest it isnt?

hxxp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encapsulation_(networking)

hxxp://learn-networking.com/tcp-ip/how- ... cpip-model

hxxp://www.firewall.cx/osi-encap-decap.php

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_tunnel

need i say more?

and the reason i say it would take more hours in the day, is the volume of tickets i assume they get asking if this or that person is cheating..

i should add that although u have made grave errors, some of what u said is in fact correct. You would not detect a proxy by packet sniffing. That was my error.  

However, the conversation did not start that way, you have constantly misunderstood what ive been saying, and then going off on a tangent, my scenario from the very start included proxy, as this is an effective way to disguise IP's, the reason i started this way was because on several occasions i have received the same response

Quote
and in nearly every support ticket that has been handled by jason which has been turned down, and some from john, they have clearly stated, "they are not sharing the same IP".

as you have just stated they are designed to be transparent, and would likely only be detected if said proxy was an open one which you could find, since you know something of networking, you would also know it wouldnt be hard to proxy information through several different channels which wouldnt be soo easy to detect, and certainly would take more then a search via web. An example of this would be remote access to other networks and then accessing the game from there. This can even be done through MSN so you would infact be using 2 computers, 2 connections but being controlled by one person. I'd only have to ask my girlfriend nicely and she would give me that access, and i too "would not be sharing the same IP"

Quote
All you can do is speculate about the supposed evidence. If Jason didn't elaborate on what he is going by to determine that he thinks they are different, any counter argument is purely theoretical.

I made assumptions based on experience and the information available, after that neither of us will know for sure.

i did give a very brief explanation into a possible proxy, but it was just an example of how it can be done easily, and still use both IP's, which is all i said in my earlier statement
Quote
and i can change my ip with every browser i use,
since you started your argument by only referring to one piece of my earlier statement.

Quote
You are supposing that he is changing IPs simply by rebooting his router

so neither of us are any closer to being right on the subject, as you have continued to only argue select points, and have caused this debacle in communication
« Last Edit: January 01, 1970, 12:00:00 AM by Guest »
Miss Kiki: Believe me I have been well warned about you
Miss Kiki: I think it was stated that Swan is the biggest nut job in the SFC game community

Biggest nut job on SFC - I claim it!

Offline Big S

  • Member
  • Posts: 2450
    • View Profile
Re: Player admits to having cheated, is cheating again.
« Reply #35 on: January 12, 2011, 08:06:02 PM »
Quote from: "Swanvesta"
ok for starters..i like how you picked the one definition out there which supported your claim and didnt want to state the others
That's how words with multiple meanings work. You, the speaker, determine which usage you are using. I cited the definition that corresponded with my particular usage, thus proving I was correct in exercising my prerogative to use the particular word I used. That's why dictionaries number them. Are you seriously proposing that I have to use the word in the only way you want me to?? Or that the only valid use of a word is that which simultaneously satisfies ALL numbered definitions of said word???
the o ret i cal/Adjective
Based on or calculated through theory rather than experience or practice: a theoretical reformer of opinions
But....my usage was this, according to Merriam Webster:
Theoretical:
1 b : confined to theory or speculation often in contrast to practical applications : speculative

I was not using this definition:
2: given to or skilled in theorizing

or this one:
3: existing only in theory : hypothetical

Though I suppose I could have been using #3 as it is the very word you suggested I should have used, lol.


hy po thet i cal  
[hahy-puh-thet-i-kuhl]
–adjective
1.
assumed by hypothesis; supposed: a hypothetical case.
2.
of, pertaining to, involving, or characterized by hypothesis: hypothetical reasoning.


My "ideas" are based on the actual evidence of being sent support answers, yes i did hypothesize the rest, because like you rightly stated, behind the answer i do not know for sure what is going on. The rest of my statement again was from practical experience, as i have used these proxies to hide my IP many times. So this is not theory, although alot is assumed.
Your "theory" as I referred to it was that support hasn't adequately investigated. They told you they believe it is two different people, and you have speculated, i.e. theorized, that they haven't looked closely enough. Your hypothesis is that one can hide all traces of using a proxy and be completely un-discoverable. And I don't disagree that it could be done, and done very, very well such that it would be very difficult to discover. I'm just reserving judgment before I assume the person is doing that. Most of the half-a$$ed attempts to disguise an IP are easily discovered. And many if not most don't know how to do it any better than that. So where you and I disagree, is that I'm not ready to assume the person is the Machiavellian mastermind type.


based on that, the actual word, is hypothetical. and i had this discussion just the other day about my use of abbreviation, so your smart becoz u take twice as long to type, well if u wish to waste your life typing out essays go for it, i prefer to write on the spur of the moment and not care to much about the way it looks its called efficiency.
That last bit would be called a run-on sentence. If you don't want a grammar lesson, then kindly try to restrain yourself from questioning my understanding of word definitions and derailing what could have been a good discussion into the realm of semantics. I didn't care about your lack of education until you made me care. Or put concisely, $hit or get off the potty, get out of the kitchen if you can't take the heat. Whatever.

Secondly, the usage of the word cheat is grammatically correct the way i wrote it, just because the rest of the world likes to bastardise the English language doesnt mean i have to go along with it.
Fair enough on "cheat". Touche. And yet, even the Oxford English dictionary also lists "cheater" as a word, lol.
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definitio ... mpted=true
 :lol: --> This is directed at both of us.



I guess you are going to say addicting is actually an accurate word too right? no its addictive addicted or addiction. damn Americans!
Ironically, the problem with English is exactly what you are complaining about, and yet has also been it's historic strength. It's ability to adapt, grow, incorporate words from other languages, etc. It's very Borg-like, and you cannot escape the admission that there are tons and tons of examples of made up words (poor grammar and what not) eventually becoming accepted as "proper". Unfortunately you aren't the person who gets to approve the words that are officially recognized. I really don't care to expand this discussion into your latest theory  ;)  about which word I use for addictive/addicting/etc, although the Oxford English also recognizes the use of "addicting" if you really want to go down that road...

hxxp://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cheat

and finally...

all data that is sent via a network is encapsulated.. or are you trying to suggest it isnt?

hxxp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encapsulation_(networking)

hxxp://learn-networking.com/tcp-ip/how- ... cpip-model

hxxp://www.firewall.cx/osi-encap-decap.php

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_tunnel
Hmmm, a nice set of links there. Of course, in the very generic description, the layered OSI model relies on one layer being encapsulated in the next. But typically in data networking the practical everyday use of "encapsulation", since we are talking about proxy protocols after all, refers to tunneling protocols like GRE, IP-in-IP (as an example of this exact use of the word encapsulation in context of tunneling, see: http://www.networksorcery.com/enp/rfc/rfc1853.txt), carrier IPVPNs, MPLS based VRFs, CAPWAP, DVMRP tunneling, PLSB, PBB, 802.1QinQ, RFC 2344 - Mobile IP Reverse Tunneling, etc. If you deny this, you will show to anyone who knows enough to follow this discussion that you are in fact, an outsider to the world of networking and are attempting to argue by Google. You've even mixed the two usages in your set of links. The last link refers to "tunneling" as was my response directed towards. But your first links refer to the more generic usage, in that all protocols encapsulate a "data" field. So pick your usage and stick with it. You can obfuscate the discussion with a set of links, but you can't obfuscate the essential point that whether you are using a http proxy, a SOCKS proxy, or otherwise, at the server, you won't detect it with a packet capture. If you would have taken your time to digest the last link you gave, you'd see that the tunnel (which is what we are talking about) is between proxy client and proxy server. There is no tunnel or proxy encapsulation at the web server. And spare me the "all networking is encapsulation" bit as I'm talking about the behavior of tunneling proxies vs non-tunneling proxies.

need i say more?

and the reason i say it would take more hours in the day, is the volume of tickets i assume they get asking if this or that person is cheating..
Highlighting mine to show that you are admitting that you are just speculating.

i should add that although u have made grave errors
None of which you have supported, lol.
, some of what u said is in fact correct. You would not detect a proxy by packet sniffing. That was my error.  
Thank you for admitting my key point, though it was a nice distractionary (yes, I know this isn't a "real" word) technique to bog this admission down in a barrage of extraneous information.

However, the conversation did not start that way, you have constantly misunderstood what ive been saying, and then going off on a tangent,
Point that finger at yourself. You decided to derail with an attempted lesson on dictionary definitions...FAIL, lol.
my scenario from the very start included proxy, as this is an effective way to disguise IP's, the reason i started this way was because on several occasions i have received the same response

Quote
and in nearly every support ticket that has been handled by jason which has been turned down, and some from john, they have clearly stated, "they are not sharing the same IP".

as you have just stated they are designed to be transparent, and would likely only be detected if said proxy was an open one which you could find, since you know something of networking, you would also know it wouldnt be hard to proxy information through several different channels which wouldnt be soo easy to detect, and certainly would take more then a search via web. An example of this would be remote access to other networks and then accessing the game from there. This can even be done through MSN so you would infact be using 2 computers, 2 connections but being controlled by one person. I'd only have to ask my girlfriend nicely and she would give me that access, and i too "would not be sharing the same IP"
Again, I've never argued that one couldn't have a very elaborate setup. I can also think of a few myself, some related to the fact that I used to work for a rare company that owned it's own class A, which was registered to an address in another country. You are speculating that [the person has some elaborate setup] is what is going on and that support is being hoodwinked. I'm not going to crucify a user without more to go on than speculation, any more than I would assume that this user works for a company that has a class A registered to a foreign address, just because I did once upon a time.

Quote
All you can do is speculate about the supposed evidence. If Jason didn't elaborate on what he is going by to determine that he thinks they are different, any counter argument is purely theoretical.

I made assumptions based on experience and the information available, after that neither of us will know for sure.
Then there shouldn't be a single problem with what I have said. You admit it was an assumption. That was my point. You are assuming and speculating. All this other stuff about quibbling over dictionary and grammar is immaterial.

i did give a very brief explanation into a possible proxy, but it was just an example of how it can be done easily, and still use both IP's, which is all i said in my earlier statement
Quote
and i can change my ip with every browser i use,
since you started your argument by only referring to one piece of my earlier statement.
The piece I disagreed with. And the example that I disagreed with. If one is using a proxy that is not a proxy they have personally setup, or have control over, the same tools that they used to find out about it, are the same tools that BFG can use to discover the host is a proxy server. That was the response to the assertion that they might be using a proxy. Not that they couldn't setup a proxy themselves or do some elaborate remote control of a machine on another ISP, etc. etc. etc.

You may recall the path this discussion took. First it was asserted that rebooting a router would get a different IP. I pointed out, a trained monkey could see that two IPs came from the same block of IPs using WHOIS, which any support person would be trained in the use thereof. It was also stated by someone that the IPs were in fact from different states. Then began the business of proxies as a speculation. To which I answered that if said person was using a proxy (either HTTP or SOCKS) that had an IP in a different state, unless they had accomplices, more than likely it would be some public/private proxy server that is not theirs. Which would be also easy for support to figure out. And of course, there are other possibilities, someone might have more resources, buddies, work VPN, etc. I've never proposed the absence of a viable way to fool support, only that most easy means that the average non/semi-technical person has access to are easy to discover. I've only commented on the proposals presented.


Quote
You are supposing that he is changing IPs simply by rebooting his router

so neither of us are any closer to being right on the subject, as you have continued to only argue select points, and have caused this debacle in communication
Umm, I picked out the points I contended with. That's how discussions work. And no, you caused the debacle with questioning my use of a word that was completely supported as a VALID usage in the MW dictionary. I gave you the definition I was using, and you still wanted to argue about it.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2011, 10:00:10 PM by Big S »
Quote from: \"Evan Woodard\"
I\'m pretty sure that\'s just D-baggery.

Offline Swanvesta

  • Member
  • Posts: 818
    • View Profile
Re: Player admits to having cheated, is cheating again.
« Reply #36 on: January 12, 2011, 10:00:02 PM »
and you still cant admit your usage of it is wrong yet you yourself said in the same statements there is "subtle differences" and "they are synonyms" .. might want to stick to your guns on which ever one.. if a words meaning has difference then it cannot be used as same. And since we are arguing over the difference, which yes was my fault i quipped at you as you continually failed to see that my rationale regarding the Support was based on 2 mins work and like then, you have again picked at a few bits you know you can swing your way without actually addressing the entire idea, you took my scenario, built your own and then argued with me about it.

and no, discussions or debates, are to encompass entire ideas, if you cannot fully get to grips with keeping an idea in mind while speaking of the parts, i suggest you dont argue as these things happen. and then all we are doing is arguing for arguments sake.

and here you go again, you cannot admit you are wrong.. ALL data that is passed through a network is encapsulated, i am not a network engineer, i was trained at college regarding the osi model while studying a broad based IT practitioners course yet i still know this to be true, so you trying to swing another point away from the fact you are wrong really shows how i shouldnt continue this conversation. the entire process requires headers all the way down the model and then requires those headers when it reaches its destination to be understood and error checked. And you know why they are soo generic? because they have to be, otherwise it would not be open system interconnection would it. The reason i added the HTTP tunnel link there, is since u specifically pointed out in error that there is un-encapsulated data being sent via proxy to server using HTTP protocol, which was wrong.

so dont try to swerve the point, you are wrong.

and you just outright lied about oxford dictionary, even the online version does not recognise it as a correct word, when you search addicting, addictive is shown, and in its details, addicting is there informally. That is because it is used outside of correct grammar and requires some point of reference to guide the ill educated on target.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/view/ ... _gb0007820

"I didn't care about your lack of education until you made me care. Or put concisely, $hit or get off the potty, get out of the kitchen if you can't take the heat. Whatever."  << badly quoted phrase here too since we're being picky

i love how people take my personal preference to writing styles, and expect their assumption that im illiterate to be true, i probably have a better grasp of the language then you, i just choose not to be soo stuck up, and rarely pick others on theirs, but since u came here picking at me, without actually entertaining the entire idea until i pulled you up on it, i gave you a taste of your own medicine. And when 500 million users of the English language decides were going to get a new word, we have to accommodate it unfortunately. What makes it worse is that you then teach those words like they are correct, so you will find many Americanised words in daily usage which are not correct.

and when you come to debate in public you are better to err on the side of caution and accuracy, then use your own interpretation of a definition. these are again from the oxford dictionary and your usages are no where to be seen.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/view/ ... _gb0396100
http://oxforddictionaries.com/view/entr ... _gb0857300

and since we English wrote the language, i guess if anyone has it right we do eh..?
« Last Edit: January 01, 1970, 12:00:00 AM by Guest »
Miss Kiki: Believe me I have been well warned about you
Miss Kiki: I think it was stated that Swan is the biggest nut job in the SFC game community

Biggest nut job on SFC - I claim it!

Offline the enforcer

  • Member
  • Posts: 2782
    • View Profile
Re: Player admits to having cheated, is cheating again.
« Reply #37 on: January 12, 2011, 10:05:03 PM »
guilty until proven innocent or something like that.

burn the witch.
« Last Edit: January 01, 1970, 12:00:00 AM by Guest »

Offline Big S

  • Member
  • Posts: 2450
    • View Profile
Re: Player admits to having cheated, is cheating again.
« Reply #38 on: January 12, 2011, 10:27:07 PM »
Quote from: "Swanvesta"
and you still cant admit your usage of it is wrong yet you yourself said in the same statements there is "subtle differences" and "they are synonyms" .. might want to stick to your guns on which ever one.. if a words meaning has difference then it cannot be used as same.
Ok, whatever. I used it in a context and provided the definition that supports the use. Now you want to ramble incoherently about whatever.

And since we are arguing over the difference, which yes was my fault i quipped at you as you continually failed to see that my rationale regarding the Support was based on 2 mins work and like then, you have again picked at a few bits you know you can swing your way without actually addressing the entire idea, you took my scenario, built your own and then argued with me about it.
That may be your opinion, but I assure you, I was contending that you were speculating about the person in question. Which you have since admitted. So I'm vindicated there for arguing with you :-)

and no, discussions or debates, are to encompass entire ideas, if you cannot fully get to grips with keeping an idea in mind while speaking of the parts, i suggest you dont argue as these things happen. and then all we are doing is arguing for arguments sake.

and here you go again, you cannot admit you are wrong.. ALL data that is passed through a network is encapsulated,
I admitted that if you are having an discussion on OSI model and theory, encapsulation is a term that could be used. But I told you that most of the time in network engineering circles if you are having a discussion about "encapsulation" it is almost always in reference to tunneling. Since we are talking about proxies, some of which do tunnel, and you were talking about sniffing encapsulations on the server which would supposedly reveal the use of a proxy server, it sure sounded like you were mixed up about how proxies and tunneling and encapsulation work. Now you retreat to higher ground and expect me to take the bait. Sorry.

i am not a network engineer, i was trained at college regarding the osi model while studying a broad based IT practitioners course yet i still know this to be true, so you trying to swing another point away from the fact you are wrong really shows how i shouldnt continue this conversation. the entire process requires headers all the way down the model and then requires those headers when it reaches its destination to be understood and error checked. And you know why they are soo generic? because they have to be, otherwise it would not be open system interconnection would it.
Yawn. You can use Google, and are trained in the art of changing subjects. I was talking about SOCKS which uses tunneling, otherwise referred to as encapsulation, vs your typical HTTP proxy which doesn't tunnel, or encapsulate. Yes, you are mixing context when talking about encapsulation.

If you don't believe me and think it is incorrect to refer to tunneling as "encapsulation", I'll give you several links that specifically refer to encapsulation in the exact same contect (tunneling) as I mentioned.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library ... 12%29.aspx
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1928.html
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5845 <-- as yourself what the E stands for in GRE.

Essentially you are arguing that the generic meaning of encapsulation obviates the possible use of a more specific meaning. And it is really pretty funny.


The reason i added the HTTP tunnel link there, is since u specifically pointed out in error that there is un-encapsulated data being sent via proxy to server using HTTP protocol, which was wrong.
It's only wrong if you ignore the fact that most of the time encapsulation is referring to tunneling behaviors, when one network engineer is talking to another.

so dont try to swerve the point, you are wrong.
I didn't, and I'm not. You are changing the context to try to make a point that doesn't stand on it's own in the original context. Just like you did with the definition argument you made.

and you just outright lied about oxford dictionary
No I didn't. Thanks for the link proving I didn't lie. What part of "also informal addicting" do you not understand.
, even the online version does not recognise it as a correct word, when you search addicting, addictive is shown, and in its details, addicting is there informally.
Yes it is!!! FTW.
 That is because it is used outside of correct grammar and requires some point of reference to guide the ill educated on target.
This is all great considering I actually never used the word addicting and you were theorizing that I probably did. Not sure your point, other than arguing to argue. I did find it amusing that what you claimed was wrong was recognized in the OE dictionary.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/view/ ... _gb0007820

"I didn't care about your lack of education until you made me care. Or put concisely, $hit or get off the potty, get out of the kitchen if you can't take the heat. Whatever."  << badly quoted phrase here too since we're being picky
I guess, but not really. Is that all you got?

i love how people take my personal preference to writing styles, and expect their assumption that im illiterate to be true, i probably have a better grasp of the language then you, i just choose not to be soo stuck up, and rarely pick others on theirs, but since u came here picking at me,
Bullshit. I NEVER picked at your grammar until FIRST you picked at my word choice. Liar.
without actually entertaining the entire idea until i pulled you up on it, i gave you a taste of your own medicine. And when 500 million users of the English language decides were going to get a new word, we have to accommodate it unfortunately. What makes it worse is that you then teach those words like they are correct, so you will find many Americanised words in daily usage which are not correct.
Yawn. Let the Germans complain about how English bastardized German first. Then you can have your say.

and when you come to debate in public you are better to err on the side of caution and accuracy, then use your own interpretation of a definition. these are again from the oxford dictionary and your usages are no where to be seen.
Plenty of people refer to Merriam Webster, and the fact that you are the ONLY person to complain about me using the word theorize in reference to your blatant speculations, speaks volumes. Again, here you are still beating this same old drum despite being proven incorrect. Here again:

Theoretical:
1 b : confined to theory or speculation often in contrast to practical applications : speculative

I was not using this definition:
2: given to or skilled in theorizing

or this one:
3: existing only in theory : hypothetical

Though I suppose I could have been using #3 as it is the very word you suggested I should have used, lol.


http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/view/ ... _gb0396100
http://oxforddictionaries.com/view/entr ... _gb0857300

and since we English wrote the language, i guess if anyone has it right we do eh..?
That is just dumb. English is a mish mash of adopted languages and words. You adapted. You didn't invent. Puhlease. If you are suggesting htat I should be cognizant of my readers when posting, I'll point out that 2/3 of native English speakers world wide live in the US, hence, I would be appealing to by far the broader readership by relying on American English than good old British English. Globally it seems that American English has slightly more influence than British English. We surpassed you, mate. Lets live in the 2000s, not the 1700s. We earned the right to our differences when we sent the redcoats packing.
« Last Edit: January 01, 1970, 12:00:00 AM by Guest »
Quote from: \"Evan Woodard\"
I\'m pretty sure that\'s just D-baggery.

Offline Swanvesta

  • Member
  • Posts: 818
    • View Profile
Re: Player admits to having cheated, is cheating again.
« Reply #39 on: January 12, 2011, 10:54:59 PM »
you just cant admit you are wrong.. i like how you didnt comment on the oxford dictionary reference, which is proof that u were wrong..and again swerved the point to try to make yourself right..

anyways u got boring, i dont argue with fools.
« Last Edit: January 01, 1970, 12:00:00 AM by Guest »
Miss Kiki: Believe me I have been well warned about you
Miss Kiki: I think it was stated that Swan is the biggest nut job in the SFC game community

Biggest nut job on SFC - I claim it!

Offline Big S

  • Member
  • Posts: 2450
    • View Profile
Re: Player admits to having cheated, is cheating again.
« Reply #40 on: January 12, 2011, 11:03:18 PM »
Quote from: "Swanvesta"
you just cant admit you are wrong..
I admit I am wrong when I am wrong. The closest thing to wrong was quibbling over cheat vs cheater. And it turns out you were wrong there too.

i like how you didnt comment on the oxford dictionary reference, which is proof that u were wrong..and again swerved the point to try to make yourself right..
Then you missed it. I'm not speaking Queen's English, mate. I'm speaking the English that the majority of English speakers in the world speak: American English. Again, my usage was validated by MW which is widely accepted as authoritative, which is proof that I was right. I could care less if other "dictionaries" don't list the same exact definitions.

anyways u got boring, i dont argue with fools.
Awww, couldn't spare the ad-hominem as you leave with your tail between your legs, lol. Also hilarious that your final post is still off topic and nothing more than still quibbling over a word definition that you are so wrong about, it's not even funny that someone could be THAT wrong.
« Last Edit: January 01, 1970, 12:00:00 AM by Guest »
Quote from: \"Evan Woodard\"
I\'m pretty sure that\'s just D-baggery.

Offline Swanvesta

  • Member
  • Posts: 818
    • View Profile
Re: Player admits to having cheated, is cheating again.
« Reply #41 on: January 12, 2011, 11:08:17 PM »
no the truth is, there is no point arguing with you i have proved your words incorrect, but u just throw up another smoke screen to cover the inconsistencies in what you say, so i got bored.. so im leaving.. end of story ..
« Last Edit: January 01, 1970, 12:00:00 AM by Guest »
Miss Kiki: Believe me I have been well warned about you
Miss Kiki: I think it was stated that Swan is the biggest nut job in the SFC game community

Biggest nut job on SFC - I claim it!

Offline Aaria.moon

  • Member
  • Posts: 2463
    • View Profile
Re: Player admits to having cheated, is cheating again.
« Reply #42 on: January 12, 2011, 11:11:06 PM »
lol, he proved you wrong. He commented on everything you said too.
« Last Edit: January 01, 1970, 12:00:00 AM by Guest »
HONEYBEE MALES: DURING COPULATION THEIR BODY EXPLODES APART LIKE GRENADE; GENITALIA HAS HOOKS AND SPINES AND IT WEDGES INTO FEMALE AND SEALS HER OPENING.

Offline Big S

  • Member
  • Posts: 2450
    • View Profile
Re: Player admits to having cheated, is cheating again.
« Reply #43 on: January 12, 2011, 11:12:47 PM »
Let me help make your post correct and truthful:
Quote from: "Swanvesta"
no the truth is, there is no point arguing with you...because Big S is right... i have proved your words 100% correct, but u just throw up another smoke screen to cover the inconsistencies in what you say although i can't provide a single example of an inconsistancy, so i got bored from getting my ass whooped.. so im leaving.. like a dog with his tail between his legs... end of story ..
« Last Edit: January 01, 1970, 12:00:00 AM by Guest »
Quote from: \"Evan Woodard\"
I\'m pretty sure that\'s just D-baggery.

Offline Swanvesta

  • Member
  • Posts: 818
    • View Profile
Re: Player admits to having cheated, is cheating again.
« Reply #44 on: January 12, 2011, 11:28:18 PM »
LOL u know there are other childish people that use those same tactics.. yawn.. i have shown the inconsistencies, but you were unwilling to see them, and continued to argue around them, without facing those points head on..you have even resorted to saying becoz the american population is larger, that they must be correct when speaking of England's native language, and then say you dont care about the MOST authoritative version of said language..

the IT side of things, yes i was wrong about packet sniffing, i already said that, but you are wrong when speaking about the encapsulation of data for transport over networks.. i was right and then you decided to change my meaning to suit yourself,

its not a term which is used its THE term which is used for this process. After which you are arguing with yourself over varying meanings of the word. As it can be used for a variety of different subjects. however, the meaning (like how im using your own rationale here right?) which i choose to use it for, was as i have stated.

and i have proved what u say incorrect you are just too stubborn to admit when you are wrong and too stupid to realise your mistakes
« Last Edit: January 01, 1970, 12:00:00 AM by Guest »
Miss Kiki: Believe me I have been well warned about you
Miss Kiki: I think it was stated that Swan is the biggest nut job in the SFC game community

Biggest nut job on SFC - I claim it!

 

birthmark-ant