[QUOTE="sonic479"]Perhaps that is because you use gamefaqs...it doesn't support pictures. Anyway, why would I even bother if there's already a page on my site that has everything they need to know right there?
So what you are implying then is that the same info that can be found here we should be going to your site instead and look up at the exact same info? Lawl.[/quote] Nope, the info isn't available here. If it were, there would have been no reason for me to have created the site in the first place. [QUOTE="sonic479"]Exactly, it is easier to provide a link to the tutorial rather than screw around with the code to get it to work on here. And yes, I would post a link to the page that has a list of trainers. I'm sure that's far more helpful than saying, "no, there's no such thing as a trainer....there's no cheating in this game," like you do.
When did I say that (or the like)? Did I deny to the fact that there is no cheating? Did I deny to the fact that there are no trainers scattered around? I didn't think so.[/quote] It was in a thread a few months ago. I would link to it, but the purge has already eaten it. When the poster asked "Is there any way to {insert use of trainer}" you responded with a resilient no while also implying that there was no cheating in the game. So yes, you completely denied the existence of trainers. [QUOTE="sonic479"]I pride myself in giving simple, explicit answers. Sometimes those answers happen to be "How to build a coaster underground: {insert link here}" and they get moderated for whatever reason. One must think that the link answered the questions posed in the original threads since the original posters either never replied or said "thank you."
Still an assumption. How do you know that they actually care about their own topic? How do you know that they didn't create an account just to ask a question only to find their answer a couple minutes later? Ultimately, it doesn't really matter if they decide to leave a reply or not.[/quote] Then I don't see why you care so much about it. If the link doesn't help them, then it can help someone else. And even if no one sees it then it really doesn't matter...the earth still spins and the news still comes on at six. [QUOTE="sonic479"]It's odd how you keep going back to the trainers. I have never denied that using a trainer is likely against what Chris Sawyer originally intended nor have I denied that it could possibly be considered cheating. I still have yet to see where you're going with this...perhaps you just like to hear yourself talk.
Am I? Or am I acknowledging the fact that you yourself are lying as well? If you aren't denying it, why is it that you don't say that it is "possibly considered cheating" when you make a reference to trainers? Are you afraid that they would change their opinion about them? [/quote] I don't see how I could possibly be lying. Anyone that looks at a trainer can make their own judgment on if they want to use it and what the consequences of using it are. I for one find the game more enjoyable when I have more control over it. Others may like not having so much control so they can choose to not use a trainer. Forcing my opinions on users is not how I operate...I like to let people think for themselves so I give the link and maybe a few details to help them know what it does. If they want to know anything else they can go to Google (which they should have done in the first place...). Half the questions asked here can be answered with a five second search which is another reason my answers are short. I get frustrated when I see a thread asking about something I've already answered many times. As a result of this, I created a place that I could link to that contains the most common answers. Apparently you missed the part about "simple, explicit answers." I'm not going to give some long, drawn out speech about how something could possibly be considered cheating especially when I don't really care about what it can be considered and it doesn't make any difference in the long run. I'm just here to offer answers to questions in the most efficient way possible...not discuss moral issues. [QUOTE="sonic479"]For what reason would you point out something like that unless you couldn't find any other faults? It seems you are trying to demean me, but you aren't being very successful.
No, I brought it up just to show that your site doesn't have "everything", thus your statement is false. Furthermore, as I said earlier in this post, why would I go to your site and find the info I want when the exact same info can be found here?[/quote] What statement??? When did I say my site had everything? There you go pulling stuff out of the air again. I'll say it once again: the site started out as a giant FAQ page and then branched out into a few other areas. The success of those other areas really doesn't matter since I never linked to them from here and never even mentioned them. By the way, I'd love for you to show me the tutorials that I am referring to on this site (since they don't exist or maybe they're cleverly hidden somewhere). [QUOTE="sonic479"]At that time, there was somebody that was having a slight disagreement with me (remember the multiple "rct site idea" threads? I bet you don't since you seem to have a selective memory). I imagine that in an effort to try to piss me off they went through all my posts and hit the report button. Unfortunately for them, they were unsuccessful (as was their site...just like I said it would be).
Probably. Then again, I was actually in favor of your site at that time. >_> New RCT fan sites are not needed whatsoever.[/QUOTE] Finally something we can agree on! It's a sad fact that since there's not going to be a RCT4 many have given up or even stopped playing the game. Along with this, a large chunk of RCT sites are starting to die a slow, painful death. Even I have completely lost interest in playing the game.

[QUOTE="sonic479"]Lolz at Gamespot then. Through my perspective at GameFAQs, the guide answers almost of the questions about the game mechanics and explains the actual gameplay itself.[/QUOTE] If you haven't noticed, I don't link to things for questions like that. Actually, I pretty much ignore those threads since the only thing I could possibly put is "read the ******* manual." Really I could put that in 99% of threads... [QUOTE="sonic479"]I never claim that I don't have a selective memory. I only said that you fail at assuming, given to the fact that a selective memory only remembers some portions of experiences, but not many.[/QUOTE] If this isn't a claim then I'm not sure what is: [quote="PVCSnathan"]At that time, there was somebody that was having a slight disagreement with me (remember the multiple "rct site idea" threads? I bet you don't since you seem to have a selective memory). [quote="sonic479"]You fail at assuming.[/quote][/quote] [QUOTE="sonic479"]http://boards.gamefaqs.com/gfaqs/genmessage.php?board=132866&topic=43014194

http://website.lineone.net/~rcthelp/acCeSSReadMe.htm

Guide says you lie. There are apparently "bugs" which you forgot to point out.[/QUOTE] It seems you fail at reading: [quote="acCeSSReadMe"] KNOWN BUGS 1) There are no known bugs. There is extensive error trapping code when files are read or written to prevent program failure due to hard disk and/or CD errors.
2) There is no code in the program to test for user/security privileges on Windows 2K and XP systems. However, failures to create files because of of security violations will be reported as file errors and the program will exit smoothly. [/quote] [QUOTE="sonic479"]From your perspective. I call it "revealing the truth".[/quote] That's kind of silly. It's just like how McDonalds had to put "Caution Hot" to make people shut up. Of course it's hot since it's coffee....same thing with this game and all programs...there are some bugs but they aren't show stopping and can be solved if one thinks logically. Let's do a comparison: Coffee=Hot, Atari=Bugs. [QUOTE="sonic479"]No, I only said some that don't actually lead to info that can be found here are only helpful (i.e. game mechanics, easter eggs, etc.).[/quote] That was really a matter of convenience. It was two clicks as opposed to four. Since I decided the site had outlived it's usefulness, I closed it, so there's really no point in arguing about something that's in the past. [QUOTE="sonic479"]Wow, is that a joke question? Where did I say that? The same info in a FAQ guide that can be found here, you would rather post a link to your own website. It really hints that you are indirectly trying to "advertise" your site. Bringing back to the easter egg names, why is it everytime that you post a link to your site as oppose to saying "See cheats section above" when clearly both of them contain the same thing?[/quote] See above ^ Clearly you have never made a comparison. Also, how would you feel if you were given a link to gamespot and you were a gamefaqs user (or vice-versa)? [QUOTE="sonic479"]I never said there were accurate nor did I say they were true statistics. I could always use this board's topics and then place an estimate (with respect to the time of this post) but it's not worth it. Just by looking at it the outside, you could see that most of them are about gameplay mechanics, some about technical issues (i.e. where to buy the game, installation issues, etc.), and some about "cheat patches".[/QUOTE] Ah ha, so you admit to lying (ie: not "revealing the truth"). I think we're making very good progress now.