The problem with presenting information in such a non-digestable format every time is that regardless of the actual evidence that is or isn't provided, the increased time investment disincentives reading. 754 words; 4,358 characters. That gets you pretty much halfway through JFK's inaugural speech.
I
could write essay-format replies, delving into every nook and cranny, questioning and presenting counterarguments ad infinitum - or until the word count limit. Why bother doing that if the discussion doesn't move in that direction, though? I could address concerns much more efficiently by actually addressing the concerns people raise directly.
A great man once decreed:
Therefore, since brevity is the soul of wit,
And tediousness the limbs and outward flourishes,
I will be briefCome on actmyname you didnt even need to read that post, you've read it all before 100x and seen the evidence.
This is meta right, you dont need presentation of accompanying and corroborating evidence you've examined multiple times before right?
If you claim that isn't true then just pick a point and ask me to fill you in.
Why not finish this rebuttal first. This was an especially poor defense of the undeniably broken merit system before it was made far worse.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5088852.0I believe you attempted some defenses of a few scum bags in that one
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5170789.0I always enjoy drilling down on things especially if we are examining individuals here in DT including some mods.
So pick a point and let's go. I don't enjoy needing to hold back on members due to uncertainty of their true nature or intent. This is an itch I've wanted to scratch for a long time. Remaining respectful to people that may be deserving of none is an unpleasant position.
It doesn't really matter how concise a person is when detailing the truth.
Those that wish to locate the truth will find it. Those that don't,will provide multiple reasons for avoiding it.
Some people are often intimidated by the language and presentation of those with a nice command of English.
The truth is never concerned by max drill down.
Whom or which part of the broken systems of control would you like to produce any form of robust counter argument?
This is regarding the useless nature or mods right? I mean as Welch says mods like to see DT manage the subjective scamming or potential scamming. Lol what could possibly go wrong. No conflict of interests there then.
I mean mods also like to allow proven scammers to deal with potential or possible scammers.
Mods like to deal with protecting proven scammers.
Mods like lots of sub optimal things.
Polonius paraphrased version
Put up or shut up, quit finding excuses to ignore the truth.
You defend scammers and the corrupt knowingly and repeatedly then you'll need to be treated and spoken to as a corrupt scammer.
===========================================
This need for it to be easily digestible or should be ignored is just another excuse like all the other excuses for denying the truth I've listed.
If the topic is not important enough for you to dredge through 754 words that's fine just ignore my posts.
Look there is your out. Just don't pretend it could all be debunked if only you had the time to read it first.
I'm not taking any hostages in future. Debunk my points or ignore them but no excusing/ defending independently verifiable scammy, corrupt and financially dangerous behaviors from DT mods or
Pick your member and defend them. Let's see how it goes.
There I go again... rambling on ..too many wordzzz
