>make your own Kun/Chan
>I know you won't, and not even slinking back to /halfmind/, just trying to throw shade
Current staff received this board from whom for what? Why didn't you go make your own website? A literal coup. We never left because it is our home, and yet you speak inverted.
>Remember when Jim said this to FJ? Guess what, now it's time for newbies to learn how unhelpful this attitude is, directly. Laughcry.
>Bleeds money
If the problem were of a material nature, then I'm sure a donation would work great, but it isn't because the history of execution is such that from the top down I can expect that my donation would be spent on a flashy watch, collectible pen, or another grandiose thieving scheme wherein Jim Watkins makes another developer's life shitty until they give up their work literally or legally. What's funny is the talk of "Why don't you build your own" when I'd -love- to see that in the original case anyway to begin with. I have better things to waste my money on than a continuance of that, and that's a fact. Why haven't you done it if you're so convinced in the efficacy of your donation, though? And not just that but of the necessity. Maybe tell Watkins he can sell his flashy collectibles (to evade legal problems with) if he bleeds money and blood from a stone of unaware supporters that haven't looked into his history (only the facts, not the media lies).
Are you familiar with 2ch? Japanese court documents aren't lying.
And, not only that, but your position is that "one must be silent and acquiesce" is rather alarming to your system of morality. Do not think you are superior to me, because I raised the issue upon first learning of it and have repeated it often. You need to think on what you're really suggesting when you say one must offer silence to witnessing a crime.
So your answer to the court documents under question is to shout racist epithets at me in a generalized nature. Gee I wonder if you've even looked into the issue. I think you haven't, and I treat your rhetoric with the disdain that it deserves. It isn't convincing as a counter argument. Why SPECIFICALLY is it a lie? You've had months to figure it out if you're the same racism counterpointer from last time. Remember?
You do not get to ask me why when you ignore me telling you why. Idiot. I have repeated it often. Do you need another hint? Is your morality found lacking by Diogenes?
Not understanding the answer is not my issue, but you did receive an answer. Carry on, ignorami. Trouble not your head with issues you refuse to research. You'll fit right in. Blood from a stone.
A primer on neoplatonism
I said
"Japanese court documents aren't lying"
He repeated back the >implying
>Japanese courts never lie
Do you see a problem with refutation here? Courts fail once on any unrelated is enough to counter? Why no counter for the point specifically? Could it be that because that cannot be countered OR is too painful to consider mentally? RECONCILE.
And now I am blamed for "changing his words"
Neoplatonism.
Intellectually dishonest.
Utter disdain for your attempts to actually do what you blame me for. I showed you exactly where YOU changed the words. Lamp to face. What are you trying to do here exactly?
<>(Japanese) courts would never lie
Stop quoting yourself, idiot. Didn't read because you're still talking bullshit. Come back when you're making a counterpoint that is specific and not generalized. If you can't make a counterpoint specifically, then what proof do you have that you even looked into it? Simulacra is not in simula.
If it's such a stupid "trick", why did you "fall" for it with me screaming at you that you have a mental problem with honesty the entire way specifically telling you that that is not what I said, and furthermore, why have you yet not formulated a counterpoiint SPECIFICALLY about 2ch SPECIFICALLY to do with Watkins SPECIFICALLY to confirm or disconfirm my assertion of thievery? Because it seems to me you'd rather discuss anything but. Anything but that. I wonder if that's because you are trying to misdirect from the SPECIFICS.
>When your counterpoints to "Donate to Jim Watkins who is running a money sink, badly enough to need money but without a developer enough to solve problems" raises moral quandaries that cause heads to pop to get away from it mentally.
Anything but that.
Waiting for you to reveal motivations. Remember when we met before? You were just as unwilling to consider it then as now. Where is the TRUTH when it's taken even this long for you to address it specifically, even if your counter evidence is still general. Did you ever think of asking Jim about it? I wonder how similar a response you would get. He won didn't he (according to him)? So why would the response be to discount and try to misdirect endlessly?
How about we apply logic. Do you contend that Jim Watkins was NOT subcontracted to host 2ch? Do you contend that Jim Watkins did NOT end up owning the 2ch code and userbase?
Do you contend that this took place as intended with no aggrieved parties in the transaction? Do you contend that there was no trickery afoot with that business relationship?
Expecting misdirection, of course. But it will be revealing to spell out your beliefs specifically. Where is YOUR honesty regarding this? Hmm?
>Manufactured board drama to waste time and effort, nothing more
So your contentions are that it is entirely made up? >>16273090
Gee, what does it mean to contribute fiscally to someone who manufactured a crisis or let a crisis pass under his nos in his job, as an excuse to steal IP. Are you saying that the source of the genesis of this board never happened? Is it just drama to measure a person's character before donating? It's called due diligence, and every one of you who fails to address the logic of the situation fails due diligence HARD.
I bought his book before I found out this had happened. I was a sucker too, but I changed my mind because every time I brought my questions about the past events up I was brusquely dismissed by Jim, instead of honesty in the situation. Don't you think he'd clarify in a blog post or somewhere to be able to easily point to it? Hint: Squid ink for a reason. Very similar to now, where people treat the truth as a trick. Goodness gracious, imagine if an actually tricky person came along and spun sweet lies instead of the bitter cold hard truth you hate so much. But no, let's shill for Jim Watkins without doing due diligence. That's factually what you're suggesting.
Odd that you won't allow someone to reduce positions to absolute statements, logically. Strange. It's like you refuse to take a position, like a spineless jelly. You think anyone should donate and give their hard earned money to Jim especially to fix this website he refuses to fix?
At least we agree about demoralization retard over here >>16275018 Utter simpleton, herein.
"Watch me project arguments" – You. You have this whole thread of my bitching and you can't even pick a point to make fun of? Pathetic.
Like I give a shit about your opinion of what I say, as if that matters. Are you aware that you are yourself acting the role of a demoralization shill in this case? No? Because you don't care about morals? Right. Yuri Bezmenov warned there were people that demoralized out there.
Words actually have definition in an absolute context. Think about what it means to be so demoralized as to consider a moral argument given in refutation of a point, as useless. Put aside the identity for a moment and look at the raw data. Wouldn't that ibe interesting to not front load psychologically?
>>16275280 So you contend that my questions are incomplete, here? >>16273090
How would you alter them and/or add your own ideas to complete the questions?
>Wherein you miss the point about the questions each referring to bits of data that you were supposed to consider.
How much are you willing to donate since you find no problems in your due diligence? We might actually get a working website if you drop tens of thousands of USD.
Diogenes. So far I haven't found a single one. For instance, you still think I think I'm important rather than seeking truth seekers. I find you lacking. Where have all the autists gone?
Posing questions reveals natures of people, whether answered or not. I suggest you look unfamiliar words up.
I repeat:
Diogenes. So far I haven't found a single one. Posing questions reveals natures of people, whether answered or not. I suggest you look unfamiliar words up.
As a person poses a question, do you think they should have a plan in mind for the case wherein they refuse to answer, or devolve to shit throwing tier behavior. Diogenes should be answer enough to the question. What on earth means I can't score if they don't answer? I would have been done a month ago if that were my personal goal getting answers that I can surmise in the first place? Do you think repeated attempts would be useful to those watching, so they see what they can expect in the future?
Ah yes, silly anon. Who could have forseen the ego. How dare you have queries when someone suggests I financially support a crooked endeavor. I see you, demoralized. Try to not be so envious that I care. You'll find that soon some day, and you'll attempt to go explicitly to a place where queries are allowed. When that day comes, I hope you recognize yourself in form in others when you encounter mental resistance.
To think, you could have just ignored me if I don't matter in your eyes. Yet you're here, in "my small molehill" trying to convince me of your view.