Dean, in case you're not aware, the post you are replying to here is actually a chopped-up response to the original here:
https://donkeykongforum.net/index.php?topic=568.msg10816#msg10816You should check out that discussion, and my post (and follow-up posts) in their original form and context.
I have been civil with Tim throughout, and Tim has been civil with me. In fact, he is clearly having fun with it. I (speaking for myself at least) am not trying to chase him off.
Onto your points:
We've discussed Kuh's "third player" line in that thread.
Kuh was, according to the producers in the audio commentary, talking about himself. Robbie Lakeman corroborates, from his own personal communication with Brian, that this may be the case, since Brian claims to have killscreened in 2000.
The exact quote from the commentary during that scene is: "Brian Kuh claims that he has gotten to the kill screen on his own... which is why he said 'third' there."
That doesn't mean it's true, but it is a possibility, with plausible grounds. Nobody will ever know for sure except Brian.
When Kuh, and others, refer to Billy as "the champion", yes, they may have been referring to the brief 2004 933K de-facto reclamation.
But for your assertion that Shildt and Bond were referring to the '04/'05 record tussling, as opposed to Steve's original 2003 victory over Billy's 1982 score, I disagree. Look at their wording carefully. It just doesn't support that interpretation.
Roy:
"That was the last world record that Bill ever had. That was the last one to go. He had five world records in 1985, he had the Donkey Kong, and then Steve Wiebe took it away."Roy is, first of all, speaking in a way that suggests a longer length of time, an era that came to an end, not to some back-and-forth that was happening over the course of two years.
Second, Wiebe beat Billy's Junior record before he beat the DK record, which was Sczerby's when Wiebe first beat it. So *Junior* was actually the last one to go, because DK had already been lost to Sczerby.
If Roy was cognizant of the fact that Billy had already lost the DK record to Sczerby, why would he refer to DK as "the last one to go?" Or a very recently reclaimed record as "the last one to go?"
Greg:
"Steve deserves a lot of credit for that because he also... He also broke the record on Donkey Kong Jr. So he--he took two--he took two of Billy's titles, like, right away from him. And l don't mean to sound, you know, crude or anything. But he did. He did. Officially, he did."Again, Greg really sounds like he is speaking longer-term; about the reign that (he thinks) went from 1982 to 2003. Not about this 2004 stuff, where Billy held the record for literally less than a month before more Wiebe submissions came in.
If King of Con actually contains genuine additional *sourced* details about these quotes, and isn't just Dwayne ranting and speculating, please let me know.
Is it really that hard to believe that these two, and many others, weren't necessarily up to speed on everything? That they might have missed, or simply forgotten, that Sczerby, a total stranger to them, had broken the DK record before the much more up-close-and-personal Steve/Billy situation came along?
Again, DK did not have some elevated stance in the gaming world until the 2003-2005 hullabaloo (and of course the movie) brought it into everyone's field of vision.
Your assertion that Sczerby was indeed being talked up by the gamers is no less speculative than my assertion that he was not.
Tim's name was "probably mentioned on camera, probably a lot"? How can you possibly "pretty much guarantee" that?
In one of the follow-up posts from the thread I linked above, I attached Mruczek's detailed report on Steve's original 2003 submission, the one that beat Tim. *The report does not even mention Tim's name*, yet it mentions Billy's several times, and conveys a strong sense that Billy is and was the real top dog in the game. Even Steve is quoted saying that he suspects Billy of having a secret 950K-range score.
Anyway, to get into the drama/"clique" subject, your talk about "ganging up" is unfair and underinformed (not to mention, I have to say, more than a little condescendingly paternalistic in tone), and comes from someone who spends less time on this forum than the people who are on both ends of the "ganging up."
It's hypocritical of you to come into the shoutbox tonight, sanctimoniously complain about the drama, then jump into this thread and make an agitating post that is, in tone and content, completely interchangeable with the rest of the "drama" posts.
As Dave just said, you might actually want to read a little more of Tim's abusive, repetitive, completely non-productive ranting, and how many attempts were made to be sympathetic prior to where things are now, before concluding that the forum is somehow "ganging up on him." He ganged up on us first.
If you were more active here and more aware of the texture of various relationships, you might have a better understanding of why this has been happening to certain posters.
In every case, with the possible exception of Brian Allen, the "victims" have been antagonistic and disruptive, in one case (George Leutz) willfully, aggressively, and gleefully so. (The strange thing, in George's case, is that nobody even resisted him. He just suddenly decided, of his own accord, that he was done.)
Personally, I am mystified by how tolerated he was. In fact, you even said yourself some days ago that his "middle finger to Phil" stunt with Richie actually deserved more of a backlash than it got.
So you tell us, is the "clique" being too zealous, or not zealous enough?
I don't understand your position on troublemakers, and nobody has been "chased off" who wasn't one. Are we supposed to roll over and allow inveterate, unrepentant ranters, liars, braggarts, and trolls to run amok, for "fear" that they won't stick around?
To put this in terms of a situation that you are more familiar with, would you say that Jon Petric is being "ganged up on" at CAG, or has he made that bed himself? And would you ever even suggest that you haven't been one of the most active (and in fact one of the more hostile) parties in that particular drama?
You ended your post by exhorting everybody to "relax." This is very ironic, in that you are frequently one of the least "relaxed", and most insistent, in an argument, and the post itself was rather hostile.
