So is that yet ANOTHER person's work he's claiming credit for?
Hmm hard to say. It's entirely possible that he did indeed write the soccer one ,but also just as possible that he didn't. However when you have the track record he has, its of no surprise that people will look into your work with the sceptcism that is shown here. Put it this way. I didn't exactly fall off my chair in shock when I booted up Classic Invaders and saw an entirely different name as author come rolling across the screen. Or drop my jaw to the desk when Djtez contacted me back and told me in as many words "You bet your ass I wrote Quizmaster!" and pulled out scans of the reviews :D
Glad youve turned back up Palmer. Question for you. Did he have ANYTHING to say on the matter in private to you after his refusal to comment further ? Did you not question him at all ? Just curious... :)
I do find this thread fascinating ! I mean we've seem similar people in the past come out with porkies, i find it very interesting how someone can act like this, very strange. Tempted to go to the Warrington show to ask him in person !
If he had come out instantly holding his hands up and saying okay okay i was joking this would have been over ages ago. But to carry on with the lies even when hes been rumbled, to then call us all saddos just because he got found out is just making the whole thing worse. His loyal mate must also see that hes been telling porkies, one minute Kizzas birthday is 1972 or something then 1977 !
That other thread about that guy who pretended his brother was killed etc was just terrible, some people on the net really go OTT to say the least
His loyal mate must also see that hes been telling porkies, one minute Kizzas birthday is 1972 or something then 1977 !
If you?re referring to me, I?m not exactly his mate.
Anyway, the jury?s still out on this one the way I see it. I?ll still give him the benefit of the doubt, but some sort of explanation would be nice.
Glad youve turned back up Palmer. Question for you. Did he have ANYTHING to say on the matter in private to you after his refusal to comment further ? Did you not question him at all ? Just curious... :)
I never left. ;) To answer your questions, no and yes.
If you?re referring to me, I?m not exactly his mate.
Anyway, the jury?s still out on this one the way I see it. I?ll still give him the benefit of the doubt, but some sort of explanation would be nice.
Wait, not so long ago you were saying we should TRUST YOU, that he'd come clean about this.
Heh fair enough :) Mind you I don't think its so much of a case of "Jurys Out" as a case of "defendant ran out of the court , fingers in his ears yelling "Lah Lah Lah Lah Lah I Cant Hear You !!" " :D
Heh fair enough :) Mind you I don't think its so much of a case of "Jurys Out" as a case of "defendant ran out of the court , fingers in his ears yelling "Lah Lah Lah Lah Lah I Cant Hear You !!" " :D
Yeah, but you still need to be able to trust each other further down the road, so running?s really not an option.
I think he's already on some other site playing Little Miss Victim and badmouthing, WoS, JSII and Atariage and claiming to have written the Jupiter Ace OS
He may come clean but it won't be before we're all drawing pensions
Thing is Palmer, I think it's YOU far more than us he owes an explaination to. He's made this claim on your forum once afterall (ie: to you, one of its readers), not ours. And it's you that came on here and very admirably stuck your neck out , for what I believe you saw as some balance , on his behalf. We know he reads this thread so he must be aware of what you have at least tried to do for him. And with that in mind you will forgive my doubts that he will explain jack shit to anyone if he can avoid it. Not the AA forums, Mike Lamb, Digital Dimension, the rest of JSII, Kay Downe, D.J.Merrifield or Duncan MacDonald even ,let alone you or us.
But it's your call mate and certainly its not your job to get him to to say anything at all :)
I think he's already on some other site playing Little Miss Victim and badmouthing, WoS, JSII and Atariage and claiming to have written the Jupiter Ace OS
I honestly couldn?t give a rat?s ass whatever he?s up to as long as he?s being straight with me.
Without integrity you won?t get far. Not here, not anywhere.
That?s how it works.
That's a bit of a contradiction though, isn't it?
So in your eyes, as long as he is straight with you then integrity has been restored, despite him talking absolute rubbish to everyone else.
That's a bit of a contradiction though, isn't it?
So in your eyes, as long as he is straight with you then integrity has been restored, despite him talking absolute rubbish to everyone else.
Let?s not lose perspective here. If he?s being straight with me, he?s being straight - period.
We all know what?s been said and written.
I honestly couldn´t give a rat´s ass whatever he´s up to as long as he´s being straight with me.
Without integrity you won´t get far. Not here, not anywhere.
That´s how it works.
See No Evil, Hear no Evil?
Nope this is crystal clear, you don't care what he does, so long as it doesn't affect you. He's your liar so thats OK.
Unfortunately this is fairly symptomatic.
If he were a thief? Is that OK so long as he doesn't steal from YOU?
If he were a mugger? Is that OK so long as he doesn't mug YOU?
I'm alright Jack, eh?
If he's being straight with you, then he's being straight with YOU, he's STILL a liar to others, therefore he's STILL a liar. PERIOD. YOUR position is not the sole one around which the world revolves.
And now we know you "couldn't give a rat's ass"
Yet you ask us to Trust you?
Seems like a massive contradiction to me.
Of what exactly? Please enlighten me.
And if you really are a longtime member of JSII, would it be too much trouble identifying yourself so I can see who I?m having this somewhat ridiculous conversation with?
Ahhh the old trick of trying to deflect the point...
I restate:
If he were a thief? Is that OK so long as he doesn't steal from YOU?
If he were a mugger? Is that OK so long as he doesn't mug YOU?
I'm alright Jack, eh?
If he's being straight with you, then he's being straight with YOU (that's all), he's STILL a liar to others, therefore he's STILL a liar. PERIOD. YOUR position is not the sole one around which the world revolves.
And now we know you "couldn't give a rat's ass"
Yet you ask us to Trust you?
Seems like a massive contradiction to me.
Nope this is crystal clear, you don't care what he does, so long as it doesn't affect you. He's your liar so thats OK.
Unfortunately this is fairly symptomatic of the attitudes in your group.
If he were a thief? Is that OK so long as he doesn't steal from YOU?
If he were a mugger? Is that OK so long as he doesn't mug YOU?
I'm alright Jack, eh?
If he's being straight with you, then he's being straight with YOU, he's STILL a liar to others, therefore he's STILL a liar. PERIOD. YOUR position is not the sole one around which the world revolves.
And now we know you 'couldn't give a rat's ass'
Yet you ask us to Trust you?
Seems like a massive contradiction to me.
You know what? You can keep editing and re-editing your post, but it still doesn?t answer my question.
If you?d bothered to examine the case from all angles, you?d know that what I want is basically the same as everybody else. The truth.
But go ahead. A nice little witch-hunt is obviously much more to your liking.
If he were a thief? Is that OK so long as he doesn't steal from YOU?
If he were a mugger? Is that OK so long as he doesn't mug YOU?
I'm alright Jack, eh?
If he's being straight with you, then he's being straight with YOU (that's all), he's STILL a liar to others, therefore he's STILL a liar. PERIOD. YOUR position is not the sole one around which the world revolves.
And now we know you "couldn't give a rat's ass"
Yet you ask us to Trust you?
Seems like a massive contradiction to me.
If he were a thief? Is that OK so long as he doesn't steal from YOU?
If he were a mugger? Is that OK so long as he doesn't mug YOU?
I'm alright Jack, eh?
If he's being straight with you, then he's being straight with YOU (that's all), he's STILL a liar to others, therefore he's STILL a liar. PERIOD. YOUR position is not the sole one around which the world revolves.
And now we know you "couldn't give a rat's ass"
Yet you ask us to Trust you?
Seems like a massive contradiction to me.
Restate all you want, pal.
Your logic is flawed. If he?s lying to others in this matter, he?s lying to me also. Therefore logic dictates that if he?s being straight with me, he?s also being straight with everyone else.
Your logic is flawed. If he´s lying to others in this matter, he´s lying to me also. Therefore logic dictates that if he´s being straight with me, he´s also being straight with everyone else.
Then why bother saying you don't give a rat's ass what he's up to?
If he says to you in private "You know I bullshitted and claimed credit for a lot of stuff I didn't write" but maintains the lie in public? How does that work out? Do you still consider him a liar? Or do you no longer "give a rat's ass"?
bigbus, care to tell the rest of us your user name on JSII then, you seem to have arrived here like a rabid dog, jumping on a comment made in heat by someone as a reason to slag of JSII and now determined to hound Palmer. Wouldn`t mind knowing if you have a prior grudge against Palmer, as you know, that`s often the way and it`s looking that way.
I know we here often jump to conclusions, as we like to find the truth, but I wouldn`t be surprised if your a member of AA :D Seriously, there`s no need to go to forums just to slag another forum, that`s how Kizza dragged JSII into this.
Who said anything about "in private"? You?re assuming too much.
You have made it clear that you know him quite well. You have told us to trust you that you know him well enough that you know he will come clean.
Then let me direct you to THESE words...
Originally Posted by Sard
Glad youve turned back up Palmer. Question for you. Did he have ANYTHING to say on the matter in private to you after his refusal to comment further ? Did you not question him at all ? Just curious...
I never left. To answer your questions, no and yes.
The implication is that you have attempted to communicate with him (in private) but that he has not responded.
When/if he does respond to you (in private). Does that mean you no longer "give a rat's ass"?
If it were public (and in a place that can be viewed without a requisite number of posts), that would surely lay this matter to rest.
Imply whatever you want. I have questioned him, and it´s been done in an open forum.
How come you don´t know these things?
Palmer.
I disagree with your 'couldn't give a rat's ass' stance. Which could be considered provocative.
However, much of the content on JSII has been relayed to me by others. I may indeed have missed this information. Since I always understood there are post number restrictions on certain areas.
Comments
Hmm hard to say. It's entirely possible that he did indeed write the soccer one ,but also just as possible that he didn't. However when you have the track record he has, its of no surprise that people will look into your work with the sceptcism that is shown here. Put it this way. I didn't exactly fall off my chair in shock when I booted up Classic Invaders and saw an entirely different name as author come rolling across the screen. Or drop my jaw to the desk when Djtez contacted me back and told me in as many words "You bet your ass I wrote Quizmaster!" and pulled out scans of the reviews :D
Glad youve turned back up Palmer. Question for you. Did he have ANYTHING to say on the matter in private to you after his refusal to comment further ? Did you not question him at all ? Just curious... :)
If he had come out instantly holding his hands up and saying okay okay i was joking this would have been over ages ago. But to carry on with the lies even when hes been rumbled, to then call us all saddos just because he got found out is just making the whole thing worse. His loyal mate must also see that hes been telling porkies, one minute Kizzas birthday is 1972 or something then 1977 !
That other thread about that guy who pretended his brother was killed etc was just terrible, some people on the net really go OTT to say the least
Anyway, the jury?s still out on this one the way I see it. I?ll still give him the benefit of the doubt, but some sort of explanation would be nice.
I never left. ;) To answer your questions, no and yes.
Wait, not so long ago you were saying we should TRUST YOU, that he'd come clean about this.
Ahhh yesss here it is
Heh fair enough :) Mind you I don't think its so much of a case of "Jurys Out" as a case of "defendant ran out of the court , fingers in his ears yelling "Lah Lah Lah Lah Lah I Cant Hear You !!" " :D
Yeah, but you still need to be able to trust each other further down the road, so running?s really not an option.
He may come clean but it won't be before we're all drawing pensions
I suggest he's hopeing it sure as hell is. :)
Thing is Palmer, I think it's YOU far more than us he owes an explaination to. He's made this claim on your forum once afterall (ie: to you, one of its readers), not ours. And it's you that came on here and very admirably stuck your neck out , for what I believe you saw as some balance , on his behalf. We know he reads this thread so he must be aware of what you have at least tried to do for him. And with that in mind you will forgive my doubts that he will explain jack shit to anyone if he can avoid it. Not the AA forums, Mike Lamb, Digital Dimension, the rest of JSII, Kay Downe, D.J.Merrifield or Duncan MacDonald even ,let alone you or us.
But it's your call mate and certainly its not your job to get him to to say anything at all :)
LOLOL Tell me youre kidding ? :D
I honestly couldn?t give a rat?s ass whatever he?s up to as long as he?s being straight with me.
Without integrity you won?t get far. Not here, not anywhere.
That?s how it works.
That's a bit of a contradiction though, isn't it?
So in your eyes, as long as he is straight with you then integrity has been restored, despite him talking absolute rubbish to everyone else.
Let?s not lose perspective here. If he?s being straight with me, he?s being straight - period.
We all know what?s been said and written.
I don?t do contradictions.
See No Evil, Hear no Evil?
Nope this is crystal clear, you don't care what he does, so long as it doesn't affect you. He's your liar so thats OK.
Unfortunately this is fairly symptomatic.
If he were a thief? Is that OK so long as he doesn't steal from YOU?
If he were a mugger? Is that OK so long as he doesn't mug YOU?
I'm alright Jack, eh?
If he's being straight with you, then he's being straight with YOU, he's STILL a liar to others, therefore he's STILL a liar. PERIOD. YOUR position is not the sole one around which the world revolves.
And now we know you "couldn't give a rat's ass"
Yet you ask us to Trust you?
Seems like a massive contradiction to me.
Of what exactly? Please enlighten me.
And if you really are a longtime member of JSII, would it be too much trouble identifying yourself so I can see who I?m having this somewhat ridiculous conversation with?
I restate:
If he were a thief? Is that OK so long as he doesn't steal from YOU?
If he were a mugger? Is that OK so long as he doesn't mug YOU?
I'm alright Jack, eh?
If he's being straight with you, then he's being straight with YOU (that's all), he's STILL a liar to others, therefore he's STILL a liar. PERIOD. YOUR position is not the sole one around which the world revolves.
And now we know you "couldn't give a rat's ass"
Yet you ask us to Trust you?
Seems like a massive contradiction to me.
You know what? You can keep editing and re-editing your post, but it still doesn?t answer my question.
If you?d bothered to examine the case from all angles, you?d know that what I want is basically the same as everybody else. The truth.
But go ahead. A nice little witch-hunt is obviously much more to your liking.
If he were a thief? Is that OK so long as he doesn't steal from YOU?
If he were a mugger? Is that OK so long as he doesn't mug YOU?
I'm alright Jack, eh?
If he's being straight with you, then he's being straight with YOU (that's all), he's STILL a liar to others, therefore he's STILL a liar. PERIOD. YOUR position is not the sole one around which the world revolves.
And now we know you "couldn't give a rat's ass"
Yet you ask us to Trust you?
Seems like a massive contradiction to me.
Except you explicitly state you don't give a rat's ass about this except as it pertains to you personally.
Restate all you want, pal.
Your logic is flawed. If he?s lying to others in this matter, he?s lying to me also. Therefore logic dictates that if he?s being straight with me, he?s also being straight with everyone else.
Then why bother saying you don't give a rat's ass what he's up to?
If he says to you in private "You know I bullshitted and claimed credit for a lot of stuff I didn't write" but maintains the lie in public? How does that work out? Do you still consider him a liar? Or do you no longer "give a rat's ass"?
Who said anything about "in private"? You?re assuming too much.
I know we here often jump to conclusions, as we like to find the truth, but I wouldn`t be surprised if your a member of AA :D Seriously, there`s no need to go to forums just to slag another forum, that`s how Kizza dragged JSII into this.
You have made it clear that you know him quite well. You have told us to trust you that you know him well enough that you know he will come clean.
Then let me direct you to THESE words...
The implication is that you have attempted to communicate with him (in private) but that he has not responded.
When/if he does respond to you (in private). Does that mean you no longer "give a rat's ass"?
If it were public (and in a place that can be viewed without a requisite number of posts), that would surely lay this matter to rest.
I do feel perhaps this thread has become a little to harsh so I will back off
Imply whatever you want. I have questioned him, and it?s been done in an open forum.
How come you don?t know these things?
Palmer.
I disagree with your 'couldn't give a rat's ass' stance. Which could be considered provocative.
However, much of the content on JSII has been relayed to me by others. I may indeed have missed this information. Since I always understood there are post number restrictions on certain areas.
...
... A Witch!
(Sorry, I'll just get back in my corner, as this has no bearing to the wonderful story that's unfolding!)
...Reminds me, I must watch "The adventures of Baron Munchausen" again. :)