>>508731930
>That's word-for-word quotation, you spastic
It's a partial quotation that leaves from it the main substance.

>No the fuck I haven't, you absolute cuntbag, you just forgot what he'd actually said on the Sharty and then backed down on being corrected
You absolutely have. I did not forget what the alleged attacker wrote in his posts. You mentioned pass-holder data. You didn't mention general user data, which is what I was talking about.

>All right, I'll put it to you like this; if the hack was part of some wider, more nefarious thing,

>a) why would they publicly reveal themselves?
Why not? It depends what your objectives were. If it's true they'd been in the system for over a year, it's quite possible all objectives plus many more were already met. At that point does it really matter if you go public if you think you can avoid responsibility?

>b) if they were to reveal themselves, why just dox jannies?
Who says that's all they did, or that's all their objectives were? You? You can barely contain yourself. Your reasoning is inherently flawed on multiple points. You don't know who or what their targets were (if the hack is even real) or whether they got them or not.

>This is Nostradamus-tier prophecy, where its accuracy is entirely on the reader's ability to stretch it and apply it post-hoc
Elmer Fudd, Sosban, Dago, Cauldron, Edward Tennispardon and a hundred other namefags and anons could, if they were being honest, testify that you are wrong.

I could also truthfully testify that you are wrong. Because the name in those screenshots is mine. It's not the only name I've used. It's not the only time I've done something unusual like this.

Call it what you want. Try to downplay it however you want. The truth is out there.