Lord Raine said:
And I notice you left out the negative time differential from switching channels. Awfully convenient, eh, to be working on a totally different clock? The timestamps are irrelevant. What matters is the actual sequence of events as they happened. You came on after I said what I said. That's a fact.
I don't even know what that is.
I'm going to be honest. I use mibbit, so my timestamps show up as just hour and minute, just like yours. Just look at my comment where I exlaim that it would be my new signature. Hour and minute. I actually got the full log with the seconds from someone else. Pay close attention and you can figure out who it is.
In fact, while we're looking at my comment, look at the timestamp of it and the rest of the timestamps. According to both of ours, you made the comment at [02:29] from my end of the computer. Yet, in your timestamps, that would've been in the future. Now why is that?
And finally, let's look at Chaos341's comment of "
Nice timing holy shit". Why would he say that if I had come on
after you had made the comment, someone relayed it to me, and then I logged in?
Why, because even he saw that I logged in at the same time that you made the comment. This is a fact. The reason it shows up on yours as you saying it before I logged in is because it registers on your end first because it is your computer from which your comment was made. Mine showed you making the comment right after I logged in. So did the person who made this log for me. Perhaps so did Chas341's.
But you keep insisting that I had enough time to receive the message and log in after you made the comment when there were already four comments made in the same minute by two guys talking to each other before you even made your comment, a fact that shows up on both of our logs. It's cute.
