Nexon deleting enhance hacked weapons?

Only replying to the one comment which seems to make sense and give reasons instead of simply name-calling and trying to be funny.

My argument can be condensed thus: It is NOT a fallacy to say that there is a possibility that chaos scrolls were used to make the 27att vss.
Note no mention on whether the chaos scrolls are legit or not, the 10% scrolls are legit or not, or whether any duping was involved.
Two examples each from maple and rl to better illustrate my argument:

1: It is possible to pass 10 enhances legitly without using any cash items. - not fallacious imo
2: It is possible to flip 20 coins and have them all land head up. - not fallacious imo
3: You should go enhance your item to 10 star without using wards, since it is possible. - fallacious imo
4: I will flip 20 coins and have them all land heads up, because it is possible - fallacious imo

I can be certain to a large extent that the scrolls (10%, chaos) used in the making of the vss were duped, since the supply contributed by duping far exceeds the legit supply. I can also be certain in the same way that the 27 att vss, once made, and during their making, were also duped. The likelihoods of these being done legitly without duping is infinitesimal.

If you will please, argue with logic, instead of juvenile name-calling.

I always thought SP was largely made up of people who use logical reasoning to argue their comments, based on cursory readings of some posts. The sample of responses to my post (2/3 being ad hominem, and 1 apparently agreeing with the others' basically contentless posts) argues otherwise.

Oh, and @Viaje, regarding your poorly made point about transitivity, you did not show any link between the gambler example and your comment.
A proper transitive argument would have been:
1: You agree that the gambler example is fallacious.
2: You show how the quote is equivalent to the gambler example, in that it states that one should gamble, since there is always a nonzero probability of winning back the profit no matter how small it is.
3: Hence, you conclude that the quote is actually fallacious.

You did not do step 2, making your argument invalid, and your use of the word "transitive" is made to have no meaning whatsoever.

except... you use all these big words and your post still leaves me devoid of any new thought. if anyone ever needed a tl;dr its you.

the only thing worth reading is you arguing that the vss's couldve been chaosed (and actually, not sure its really worth it). and to that i say pineapple no, not without dupes or hacks. there have never been enough shoe att scrolls in circulation to legitimately support scrolling that many standard deviations outside of average. theres your logic. now stop trying to legitimize the goddamn hackers.

and yes, i read the whole post and ignored you saying what you believe about the shoe legitimacy, because youre trying to push the idea that "it couldve been done" when it most certainly couldnt.