arch_8ngel

My 2007 Honda minivan is still kicking at 205k miles (just had the timing belt redone -- so hoping to keep it going long enough to make that maintenance worth it). Not looking forward to current price markups when this thing needs replacing!

Thanks for the update. I'm sure it felt like you were taking slings-and-arrows from all directions.

The real question isn't whether newspapers quote Moody's analysts, though. For a closer comparison -- are individual analysis held individually responsible for Halperin-like antics -- and THEN are they still treated as reputable and quoted in papers? (genuinely don't have an answer for you, so not asking rhetorically)

We're on page 118 -- if someone wants to say "go back and read it" then they owe a link

I can't help but a get a chuckle out of this kind of comment coming from an "internet famous" "journalist". It makes me sad to see people in the hobby, that are separate from WATA/HA as companies, that meant well and acted in good faith get lumped in and dragged through the mud. I am sure it is unpleasant and unfortunate to become a sort of poster child for the damage that those companies being founded on conflicts of interest can cause. I hope you come through all of this without suffering much harassment.

Let's bring it back to the primary topic - by your comparison are you suggesting that Wata / HA's conflicts of interest are/were not clearly problematic?

We all know they were trying to lure in the Nolan's as early investors with their use of an exaggerated Boston accent. Clearly they failed, so they pivoted to the Bruce Lee excuse as the next best thing.

I'm not saying it makes them look squeaky clean, automatically, or anything. I'm just saying it adds a pretty significant wrinkle, when you consider the scrutiny they were likely under for a company sale. (assuming it was done competently) And again, recognizing that HA has been under no such scrutiny. (and to reiterate, if it's necessary, I have no love for Wata, and thought it was a pretty major conflict of interest from the inception, in terms of how they were spooling up their original batch of grading -- and I don't know that it's a particularly "useful" service --- I'm just trying to stay a bit rational about what is "likely" versus what is simply possible, based on what we know)

Just quoting the part that was a reply to my earlier post. The thing that is really interesting in all of this, is that I have a hard time believing that Wata managed to sell their company without the acquiring company doing necessary due diligence. I would never, ever, argue that there weren't heaping piles of conflict-of-interest from the outset. But the question becomes: "Do you think that the acquiring company (a) didn't do due diligence? (b) didn't care about what they found? or (c) didn't find anything actually problematic?" I think (a) is unlikely, at least. Without their recent sale of the company, I'd have a less skeptical perspective in all of this. That said -- they only sold Wata. HA is still it's own thing, and could be doing all sorts of who-knows-what without compromising the sale of Wata.

dra600n? dra600n, dra600n...

Ha! OK, yeah, that one floated by me and I missed it.

Hasn't he publicly gone by his real name for awhile? (what with the fairly large FB group, and all)

Based on related posts in the FB art group, I'd be pretty surprised if he popped into this thread. Then again, it's been a day of surprises.

Yeah, they were definitely different situations, since Billy had a number of major achievements that he performed live. But he still deserves to have any records stripped.

Are you sure you're not thinking of the Atari Drag Race guy? That game (or whatever its name was) had a high score for awhile that was definitively proven to be impossible. That said - I haven't kept up with any of Billy Mitchel's scores other than his DK (that was beaten by a 3rd newcomer, post-king-of-kong) and PacMan (where he had one of the earlier perfect-runs).

Was it really that long? I only distinctly remember a couple of years of apparent absenteeism on his part -- but I'm sure the shift was more obvious "behind the scenes".

This isn't really the thread for that...

I was referring to the bit in the middle of his post. Don't disagree with you, at all, that questioning WATA at NA was clamped down on way too hard. Pretty sure I was right there with you on pointing out the problematic conflicts of interest.

What on earth are you talking about?

Look, I'm not into the YouTube video scene, so I don't know you from Adam. But evidently (reading this thread, and other commentary) quite a few people actually do care about your opinion and the fact that you covered this topic. Whether you want the responsibility, or not, of being an apparently trusted source of information, you seem to have stumbled into it. I have no interest in creating "videos with a narrative I want to express", so it isn't particularly hampering to me to expect to be truthful and accurate. So my main disagreement with your posts, that you seem to want to wave away as "pedantic", is that while you claimed to go to great lengths to supply factual information, you then chose to make statements that weren't accurate (and just wave them away as "well a 'reasonable person' would have jumped to that conclusion anyway"). Just didn't see a reason for it, personally.

That's certainly an "interesting" interpretation of events...

I guess my issue with this specific item (completely separate of my opinion of the people you're discussion) -- in the same amount of time in the video you could have told the literal truth, rather than make what is a technically false statement (which to people who DO know the difference, makes you look sensationalist and brings your other statements into question) I just see no valid reason to not stick to the actual truth. The average Youtube viewer, I agree, would make the (technically incorrect) leap from "charges" to "guilty", regardless. But when you do it for them, actual discerning viewers don't really get a chance to decide that for themselves.

Thought you might. And I don't know in what universe I would ever consider the typical viewer of a youtube video to be a "reasonable person", in the sense of how they interpret information. That really seems to ignore everything we know about online media and the insanity of crowds.

While I recognize that the government doesn't generally go off half-cocked when they file charges -- having charges filed against you is still NOT equivalent to "found guilty". And I think you give the average person watching your video way too much credit...George Carlin has a great stand-up bit about it. I certainly don't trust Halperin, or his motivations, though.

nevermind...