The difference in your scenario, Mike, is that Vista wasn't contracted specifically for the consumer's needs and those needs weren't changed as frequently as possible, making accomplishing any work virtually impossible.
| |
O-matic wrote:
Kalajin wrote: Likewise, people do strange things for money, theft is one of them...but on the other hand tricking a guy into buying an Xbox box is another way too. | |
An XBOX box? XD
Reminds me of that PS2 thing with the ebay auction "Sony Playstation 2 Box" and she paid $400 for it or something and when it arrived it was exactley that, a PS2 box. XD | |
O-matic wrote:
Kalajin wrote: Yeah, I mean, he only stole $200 from UD. Not a guy to steal at all. Please consider the posts in the thread before replying again. Thank you. | |
Ben G wrote:
The difference in your scenario, Mike, is that Vista wasn't contracted specifically for the consumer's needs and those needs weren't changed as frequently as possible, making accomplishing any work virtually impossible. The need was for a game to be programmed in a relatively timely manner. The needs were not met, nor was a refund made. How is that any different from the scenario? | |
Kalajin wrote:
Yeah, I mean, he only stole $200 from UD. Not a guy to steal at all. Please consider the posts in the thread before replying again. Thank you. I have read it all. But you claimed that he intended to steal from the very beginning, and that he never programmed things. You do have the right to claim this, but you cannot confront him with this before you have solid proof of it. Which you did, yet without any proof. O-matic | |
O-matic wrote:
Kalajin wrote: How can he prove otherwise? He has shown no programming, nor has he shown any wish to solve this dispute rationally. This has yet to be disproven, so it is a theorem, which is good enough for scientists. | |
Kalajin wrote:
How can he prove otherwise? He has shown no programming, nor has he shown any wish to solve this dispute rationally. This has yet to be disproven, so it is a theorem, which is good enough for scientists. I do not care about his proof, or whatever. I was talking about your statement, not about whether Ben is talking the truth or not. It is not proven, and not disproven. And is therefor, indeed, a theory. But as I said, you have no right to confront him with your conclusions without having any form of proof that you were actually talking the truth. O-matic | |
O-matic wrote:
Kalajin wrote: "UnknownDuelist, thanks to his immaturity, can enjoy his refund of $0 and 0 hours of programming." He couldn't have put it better himself. Someone that spends 6 months not programming something has shown no intent to follow through with the discussed proposal, since, of course, he stated it would be finished in 6 weeks. (Due to the amount of the payment.) | |
Kalajin wrote:
O-matic wrote: He has an argument for that. UD did not accept his $100 refund, and so Ben didn't bother anymore. And now, please don't act as if I support Ben's actions in your next reply, which will most likely appear. I was just telling you not to confront Ben with your conclusions, but with proof. That's it, nothing more. O-matic | |
O-matic wrote:
Kalajin wrote: *sigh* Why did you just take that one line and make a big deal about it? I can place my assumptions wherever I want, since this is the internet. I THINK THAT (just to clear that up for you) it's up to the consumer to create the compromises, not the producer. UD's compromise was that Ben refund $100 and program small parts of the game. Ben initially accepted that, but then changed his response to that, as I stated earlier. (I've read this conversation, so I have more than just assumption about this.) But anyways, this really doesn't change the fact that UD paid $200 for nothing. That's theft, and that's not good. | |
Kalajin wrote:
*sigh* Why did you just take that one line and make a big deal about it? I can place my assumptions wherever I want, since this is the internet. Ah, now you understand that I was only replying to only that specific small confrontation rather than your whole post. =) O-matic | |
O-matic wrote:
Kalajin wrote: Well, at least an acknowledgement of some other parts of posts would have been nice.. I still dislike how people do that, blow one part of something completely out of proportion. And you didn't acknowledge the rest of my other one, either >.< Meh, it's about time to end this; I probably should get a life... or something.... | |
Kalajin wrote:
Yeah, I mean, he only stole $200 from UD. Not a guy to steal at all. Please consider the posts in the thread before replying again. Thank you. How about you butt out, because this doesn't involve you, even remotely. Thanks in advance! | |
Papoose wrote:
Likewise, people do strange things for money, theft is one of them...but on the other hand tricking a guy into buying an Xbox box is another way too. By the way, I refunded every cent of that money. I'm such a bad person. I had trouble sleeping last night. :( | |
Ben G wrote:
Papoose wrote: What money? | |
Kalajin wrote:
Ben G wrote: I wasn't talking to you. | |
Ben G wrote:
Kalajin wrote: I think it was very gracious that you refunded that empty Xbox box money. | |
It wasn't 8 weeks, Lummox, and sure I did. However, by the time I had anything signifigant, whatever I had programmed was no longer needed in the game. He was interested in seeing a hosted version of the game, not the code, and I could never do that because I worked mainly on behind the scenes systems during that time.