wildstar PROVES Billy Budapest smugly lied two months ago

I noticed a problem with the above track list—“God Save Us” is NOT a John Lennon track (as I am sure you all know), but rather is credited to “Bill Elliot and Elastic Oz Band.” However, its B-Side, “Do the Oz,” is credited simply to “Elastic Oz Band,” with John and Yoko on vocals (and John on guitar).

A demo of “God Save Us” exists with John supplying lead vocals over the same instrumental backing track as the released version, and I believe it is available on the Anthology box.

The version of "God Save Us" on Anthology has John's guide vocal.

Yes, mentioned in my post.

Yes, mentioned in my post.

Ah, no.

Why you lie?

Because you are wrong! Neither you nor the other dude “gave” me any information that I already knew and had already posted. I saw your post and the other dude’s after I had posted the information, not before, as you erroneously claim. That’s OK, though.

You 100% most definitely hadn't already posted it. Why would TWO different people (within minutes of each other) respond to a post correcting information if that info didn't need correcting.

What's more likely - that TWO different people incorrectly/mistakenly corrected one already correct post, or that one person saw two different people correcting his incorrect post and then dishonestly edited his post to add the correct information and go on to pretend/claim he had never posted the incorrect information in the first place?

The only question is WHY you felt the need to do so, and why you are incapable of admitting that you did it and moving on!

It happened 2 months ago ffs!

My lord! :chill:

As I said above, you are wrong. Neither you nor the other dude “gave” me any information, and I saw your post and the other dude’s AFTER I had posted that information that I already knew, not before. You cannot read my mind, correct? You cannot know when I saw your post and the other dude’s post. I am telling you that I didn’t see it before I wrote the information in my post. End of story.

THIS was your original post:



This was dasacco's response to your above post:



...and I posted the video for the Anthology version of the song with John's guide vocal:

THIS is the part you ADDED to your message AFTER both of our responses:



Then you smugly and dishonestly posted in response to each of our posts:



...and...



...to which I responded...



...then you said nothing at all in response (for 2 whole months) for some reason and are now suddenly (again - for some reason) bringing it back up out of the blue.

:crazy:

Dude, you are getting really worked up over this. Like I said before, you are totally wrong. You and the other guy did not “give” me information and I did not see your post or the other dude’s post until AFTER I posted the information. As far as something “dishonest” and “smug,” that is your imagination. You don’t know what I saw and when I saw it. End of story.

Nonsense - plus why did you wait two months to respond? Were you hoping I'd have forgotten and not call you on it?

I hadn’t read the thread until yesterday. Regardless, you were and are wrong. Time for you to move on.

You mean you don't get alerts to show you when someone replies to you the way everybody else does? You only discover that someone has replied to you by randomly stumbling upon 2 month old posts?

Saying something over and over again (with no evidence whatsoever to back it up) doesn't make it true.

I'd say the evidence is pretty strong against you:

1 - You made an erroneous (one paragraph) post

2 -TWO DIFFERENT PEOPLE corrected you immediately (anyone with the ability to read can see that)

3 - you immediately changed/added/edited/corrected your post (adding a second paragraph stating the correction that TWO DIFFERENT PEOPLE MADE in response to you)

4 - you then replied to TWO DIFFERENT PEOPLE's posts telling each of them they were wrong in correcting you and (I suppose) that they are blind or stupid or something because they BOTH were unable to read your post correctly. Does/can anyone actually believe that we both consciously and maliciously edited out your second paragraph when quoting/responding to you just to dishonestly make it look like you didn't include the correct information. What would be the motive for us to do so? Why would we both waste our time? You couldn't even claim collusion because we both posted our replies to you nearly simultaneously.

5 - then I pointed out in reply to you that the TWO DIFFERENT PEOPLE (myself included) aren't blind or stupid and can read just fine, and that YOU had made a subsequent change to your original post to try to make us look blind or stupid (or whatever)

Whatever - all you've accomplished in dredging this up again (2 months after the fact) is alert far more people to your dishonest act.

Congratulations!

I'll probably stop here, as further posts on the subject may get the posts (or thread) deleted and I wouldn't want to see that happen (especially since that may be your actual intention/hope - to get this exchange and especially (the evidence against you laid bare in) the original exchange removed.

You did what you did - just admit it (at least to yourself) and MOVE ON!

Dude! I’m not signed up for any “alerts” and don’t know how to get them. Again, I did not see your post nor the other guy’s until AFTER I posted the information. You didn’t “give” me any information. I don’t know how many times I need to tell you that. As far as you calling me “dishonest,” that is your imagination. It also reflects poorly that you are making personal attacks. In any event, for the last time, I didn’t see your post until AFTER I posted the information. This is so silly! Case closed.