Dwyane Adams - Fake Or Real?

[[old] Chad Williams]

Please please please................not Religion or God.<br /><br />Has it been varified yet??? <br /><br />

[[old] mpukita]

<!--QuoteBegin-Polaco+Jan 22 2006, 06:43 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Polaco @ Jan 22 2006, 06:43 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-mpukita+Jan 22 2006, 05:36 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(mpukita @ Jan 22 2006, 05:36 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Palaco:<br /><br />Have you read some of the posts?  They're something like, "Well, I can understand how Chad questioned Dwayne's times, because I question them too."<br /><br />They rationalize bad behaviour because they have doubt too -- but no evidence, no facts.  How would that settle with you if you were on Dwayne's end of this?<br /><br />They question Dwayne's integrity by stepping aside and not calling Chad for his impertinence (spelling?).  I'll stick with my statement that there are a number of people that would like to see Dwayne fail.<br /><br />Regards -- Mark <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Mark:<br /><br />Having doubts on something doesn't mean that you want that it has to be one way or the other. <br /><br />I can have my doubts on the existence of God but this doesn't mean I don't want Him to exists. It is the difference between atheism and agnosticism. <br /> </td></tr></table><br />Palaco:<br /><br />I believe it may be my misunderstanding you ... it's fine to have doubts ... I doubt Dwayne's times in the sense that to me, it seem HUMANLY IMPOSSIBLE to do those times (or even break 7:00 right now!). And, I'm not going to question Dwayne's integrity because of that doubt (your God analogy is perfect). It's just something I can't yet get my mind wrapped around.<br /><br />But, I'm not going to take that doubt, and say, "It's OK for Chad to question Dwayne's integrity, with no facts, because I have doubt." I'm not criticizing anyone for having doubts about the times, just for supporting (or not criticizing) someone voicing a personal attack on another's integrity and character with NO EVIDENCE. In fact, we've seen today pretty good evidence to the contrary, no? Evidence that Dwayne's lasy sub-6:00 row was witnessed and verified. <br /><br />What more could one want?<br /><br />Regards -- Mark

[[old] Polaco]

<!--QuoteBegin-VTSkier+Jan 22 2006, 05:47 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(VTSkier @ Jan 22 2006, 05:47 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Odd, I thought atheism is believing that God *doesn't* exist, while agnostics don't *know* where God exists or not (not proven to them one way or the other, yet).<br /><br />Dave <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br /><br />Haven't I wanted to say that?? <br /><br />One thing is saying that Dwayne times are fake (atheism) and the other is saying that you don't have the evidence of being real or fake (agnostics).<br /><br />I'm not a native English speaker but I think it was clear what I wanted to express

[[old] Chad Williams]

If his 5.46.2 gets IND_V everyone owes a small group of people on this forum a pat on the back.<br /><br />I for one will be very pleased with a good weeks worth of work.<br /><br />

[[old] Alissa]

<!--QuoteBegin-Chad Williams+Jan 22 2006, 03:01 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Chad Williams @ Jan 22 2006, 03:01 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If his 5.46.2 gets IND_V everyone owes a small group of people on this forum a pat on the back.<br /><br />I for one will be very pleased with a good weeks worth of work. </td></tr></table><br /><br />A pat on the back? You'll be pleased with yourself? <br /><br />How appalling. Who's your next target?<br />

[[old] Carl Henrik]

<!--QuoteBegin-Delilah+Jan 22 2006, 10:13 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Delilah @ Jan 22 2006, 10:13 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--> These and other questions remain unanswered and  perhaps we will find that they are answered in Dwaynes favour.  In the meantime I have the right to doubt without being accused of jealousy or poor sportmanship.<br />D <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Delilah, <br /><br />First let me say I find you post here have been well written, lots of fine english words for a non enlish speaker like me and also well thought through. I appreciate that. I think you are not really saying anything wrong and much that is right, but not quite disputing the key points that mpukita is making either. <br /><br />It's quite possible to have a common social understanding that saying that someone is fake is not to be interpreted as accusation outside of that social context, and merely a doubt. However, this is an international forum open to many people who don't share the same understanding about what it means to say someone is fake. Therefore the strictest interpretation is the suitable one. <br /><br />Explicitly stating, in the poll, that DA´s times are not real is accusing him, intentionally or not. Chad and many others did so. If you or anyone sees this differently than please educate me in this view! Really. <br /><br />It's perfectly possible to have doubt's and still be a believer and anwser yes, to have doubt's but not care, to have doubts and not awser at all because you don't know what to believe. None of this does Mark look down upon in my view. <br /><br />I think this is now an intellectual debate and not something many people will loose sleep over. Personaly I think it's very fascinating how we can not understand each other so well although (in my believes without proof) we share much common values.

[[old] mpukita]

<!--QuoteBegin-Carl Henrik+Jan 22 2006, 07:11 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Carl Henrik @ Jan 22 2006, 07:11 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-Delilah+Jan 22 2006, 10:13 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Delilah @ Jan 22 2006, 10:13 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--> These and other questions remain unanswered and  perhaps we will find that they are answered in Dwaynes favour.  In the meantime I have the right to doubt without being accused of jealousy or poor sportmanship.<br />D <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Delilah, <br /><br />First let me say I find you post here have been well written, lots of fine english words for a non enlish speaker like me and also well thought through. I appreciate that. I think you are not really saying anything wrong and much that is right, but not quite disputing the key points that mpukita is making either. <br /><br />It's quite possible to have a common social understanding that saying that someone is fake is not to be interpreted as accusation outside of that social context, and merely a doubt. However, this is an international forum open to many people who don't share the same understanding about what it means to say someone is fake. Therefore the strictest interpretation is the suitable one. <br /><br />Explicitly stating, in the poll, that DA´s times are not real is accusing him, intentionally or not. Chad and many others did so. If you or anyone sees this differently than please educate me in this view! Really. <br /><br />It's perfectly possible to have doubt's and still be a believer and anwser yes, to have doubt's but not care, to have doubts and not awser at all because you don't know what to believe. None of this does Mark look down upon in my view. <br /><br />I think this is now an intellectual debate and not something many people will loose sleep over. Personaly I think it's very fascinating how we can not understand each other so well although (in my believes without proof) we share much common values. <br /> </td></tr></table><br />Exactly Carl ... well said ... thank you.<br /><br />-- Mark

[[old] TomR/the elder]

Seeking clarification:<br /><br />1) I saw this in the verification protocol Mark cited:<br /><br />"Your witness contact information"<br /><br />Does that mean a top-ranking row <u>must</u> be witnessed? <br /><br />2) Earlier, there was some discussion about how a person might game the PM3. The conclusion was no clear to me. Is verification from the monitor alone fool-proof?<br /><br />Tom

[[old] Chad Williams]

I am off to do my 90" (rate not given) piece. I wait for the door of C2 to open. I will be off line now for a few hours, I thought I would tell you this as people seem to like to log how many hours I am on line on this forum. I don't log myself out just to let you know. <br /><br /><br /><br /><br />

[[old] mpukita]

<!--QuoteBegin-TomR/the elder+Jan 22 2006, 07:20 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(TomR/the elder @ Jan 22 2006, 07:20 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Seeking clarification:<br /><br />1) I saw this in the verification protocol Mark cited:<br /><br />"Your witness contact information"<br /><br />Does that mean a top-ranking row <u>must</u> be witnessed? <br /><br />2) Earlier, there was some discussion about how a person might game the PM3. The conclusion was no clear to me. Is verification from the monitor alone fool-proof?<br /><br />Tom <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Tom:<br /><br />From what I read, I believe that to have a top 3 ranking <b>verified</b> it needs to be witnessed, but I'm not certain.<br /><br />-- Mark

[[old] Delilah]

Carl and Mark,<br />Fair enough guys I certainly agree that language is a tricky thing.<br />Anyway it's almost 11.30 this side of the Pond and I suppose the earliest anything will be posted is tomorrow at 2:00pm our time. Actually I suppose that Dwayne will need the code from C2 and then have to input that etc etc.<br />Bet this isn't resolved when I get back from work (around your midday) the thread will be even bigger by then. <br />Nighty night.<br />D

[[old] VTSkier]

<!--QuoteBegin-TomR/the elder+Jan 22 2006, 06:20 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(TomR/the elder @ Jan 22 2006, 06:20 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Seeking clarification:<br /><br />1) I saw this in the verification protocol Mark cited:<br /><br />"Your witness contact information"<br /><br />Does that mean a top-ranking row <u>must</u> be witnessed? <br /><br />2) Earlier, there was some discussion about how a person might game the PM3. The conclusion was no clear to me. Is verification from the monitor alone fool-proof?<br /><br />Tom <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Unless one is *VERY* technical in computer programming, I would say yes (except for the current bug about intervals). Once that bug is fixed by C2 (I have been in communication with Bill P about it, as I'm sure other software developers have been), it would take a very technical and competent developer to get around the system. I am a software developer (my first job after college was writing assembler language for a bank in 1980), and it would be no small feat. I will not go into technical details because it would bore most of you to tears ... and I wouldn't want to help any unscrupulous people out there! <br /><br />When you add in witness(es) and photos and/or videos, I would say *YES*.<br /><br />BTW, before anyone points this out, yes, I do spell very well for a programmer! <br /><br />-- Dave

[[old] mpukita]

<!--QuoteBegin-Delilah+Jan 22 2006, 07:30 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Delilah @ Jan 22 2006, 07:30 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Carl and Mark,<br />Fair enough guys I certainly agree that language is a tricky thing.<br />Anyway it's almost 11.30 this side of the Pond and I suppose the earliest anything will be posted is tomorrow at 2:00pm our time.  Actually I suppose that Dwayne will need the code from C2 and then have to input that etc etc.<br />Bet this isn't resolved when I get back from work (around your midday) the thread will be even bigger by then. <br />Nighty night.<br />D <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />G'night Delilah!

[[old] VTSkier]

<!--QuoteBegin-mpukita+Jan 22 2006, 06:28 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(mpukita @ Jan 22 2006, 06:28 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-TomR/the elder+Jan 22 2006, 07:20 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(TomR/the elder @ Jan 22 2006, 07:20 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Seeking clarification:<br /><br />1) I saw this in the verification protocol Mark cited:<br /><br />"Your witness contact information"<br /><br />Does that mean a top-ranking row <u>must</u> be witnessed? <br /><br />2) Earlier, there was some discussion about how a person might game the PM3. The conclusion was no clear to me. Is verification from the monitor alone fool-proof?<br /><br />Tom <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Tom:<br /><br />From what I read, I believe that to have a top 3 ranking <b>verified</b> it needs to be witnessed, but I'm not certain.<br /><br />-- Mark <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Hi Mark,<br /><br />My wife is seat5 (Carla), so I'm very much up on what is needed for top-3 rankings.<br /><br />A code needs to be obtained from Dena at C2. This code is used for one season (Carla said "I think..." on that). Each time you row, you get the verification code (16 hexadecimal digits) for that particular piece from the PM3. You can then enter the piece in your logbook, edit in the verification code, and then rank the piece. It then immediately shows IND_V.<br /><br />But if you haven't done a PM3 verified piece, you tend to mess up the entry. You have to edit the entry after logging it in order to put in the verification code. Editing it automatically unranks it. After that, you rank it again. Kind of confusing...<br /><br />Regards,<br />Dave<br />

[[old] DougB]

Maybe I'm reading things wrong, but out of curiosity I checked the C2 online rankings, and there's a *very* fast time posted by Dwayne Adams today...