I said MS was partially responsible. NOT wholely. Your analogy is way out of proportion. I would say that more accurate would be if a shop keeper left his doors open & refused to close them even after things have been stolen. The person who stole the items is wrong, but for Pete's sake the store keeper should LOCK HIS DOOR!!!
Wrong is wrong, nevertheless. It begins to put a stain on the site when people start discussing scams and exploits that are obviously wrong.
That's not the way this site is, and it's certainly not the way I want it to become.
As far as opinions go, I could say the same about yours. Who's to say which opinion is valid & which is not? You & I are not an objective observers, so by definition neither of us is qualified to judge.
Yes, but considering that I have much more time and experience with the demeanor of the site ( as evidenced by join date and post count), I am a much more credible as a source when it comes to the mannerisms and demenaor of the site as a whole. This gives my contention that discussing a scam/exploit such as this in a positive light is against the stardard behavior of the site more crediblity than your contention to the contrary.
Unless there is a factual innacuracy in what I am saying, or the rest of the membership of the board does not hold the same opinion as I, that's a difficult burden for you to get past.
Not to mention that if SCUBA's posts are accurate, then MS actually knows what is going on & doesn't care. If they don't care, then it must not be that important.
I could care less what Microsoft says about it. Considering that your making a deal in bad faith to get the product, it's still more of an exploit or scam than a deal. Scams and exploits aren't part modus oporandi of this site. Whether or not Microsoft views the enforcement of the rules as important or not doesn't mean the rules don't exist.