Difference between revisions of "Talk:Opalescent Haze"
Slyfingers (talk | contribs) |
Kjfasimpaur (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==Authenticity== | ==Authenticity== | ||
| − | I personally believe that this domain is not related to the real Year Zero sites. Anyone have any further information to add? | + | I personally believe that this domain is not related to the real Year Zero sites. Anyone have any further information to add? [[User:Kjfasimpaur|Kjfasimpaur]] 01:04, 15 February 2007 (CST) |
:If [[Consolidated Mail Systems]] has it in a footnote, that's good enough for me. (Please try remember to sign your comments. It's just four "~" after your comment.) [[User:Heroicraptor|Heroicraptor]] 00:10, 15 February 2007 (CST) | :If [[Consolidated Mail Systems]] has it in a footnote, that's good enough for me. (Please try remember to sign your comments. It's just four "~" after your comment.) [[User:Heroicraptor|Heroicraptor]] 00:10, 15 February 2007 (CST) | ||
Just because it's registered somewhere else it doesn't mean it isn't related. It *is* mentioned on the [[Consolidated Mail Systems]], and one could reasonably assume it is a valid link since it came from a known website. However, I wouldn't put it in the "100% column" yet until we find definitive evidence either way, but neither would I say it is a definite fake. --[[User:Slyfingers|Slyfingers]] 00:31, 15 February 2007 (CST) | Just because it's registered somewhere else it doesn't mean it isn't related. It *is* mentioned on the [[Consolidated Mail Systems]], and one could reasonably assume it is a valid link since it came from a known website. However, I wouldn't put it in the "100% column" yet until we find definitive evidence either way, but neither would I say it is a definite fake. --[[User:Slyfingers|Slyfingers]] 00:31, 15 February 2007 (CST) | ||
Revision as of 07:04, 15 February 2007
Authenticity
I personally believe that this domain is not related to the real Year Zero sites. Anyone have any further information to add? Kjfasimpaur 01:04, 15 February 2007 (CST)
- If Consolidated Mail Systems has it in a footnote, that's good enough for me. (Please try remember to sign your comments. It's just four "~" after your comment.) Heroicraptor 00:10, 15 February 2007 (CST)
Just because it's registered somewhere else it doesn't mean it isn't related. It *is* mentioned on the Consolidated Mail Systems, and one could reasonably assume it is a valid link since it came from a known website. However, I wouldn't put it in the "100% column" yet until we find definitive evidence either way, but neither would I say it is a definite fake. --Slyfingers 00:31, 15 February 2007 (CST)