Advertised services and participants in a paid sig campaign

[The Sceptical Chymist]

So BenCodie wrote all of that negative stuff about gambling/casinos not being a positive influence on the bitcoin economy while he himself is participating in a gambling-based sig campaign?  That surprises me.  I know he's a ball-buster with his opinions, which I respect, because I think a lot of things need to be challenged (and loudly, too), but unless I'm seeing things wrong his statement is quite hypocritical.

I've always had the opinion that if you're in a sig campaign, you're not necessarily endorsing something.  But if you openly oppose whatever a campaign is advertising, I'd expect you'd not want to be a part of it.  That only makes sense, no?

[1714607696]

1714607696

[BenCodie]

So BenCodie wrote all of that negative stuff about gambling/casinos not being a positive influence on the bitcoin economy while he himself is participating in a gambling-based sig campaign?  That surprises me.  I know he's a ball-buster with his opinions, which I respect, because I think a lot of things need to be challenged (and loudly, too), but unless I'm seeing things wrong his statement is quite hypocritical.

I've always had the opinion that if you're in a sig campaign, you're not necessarily endorsing something.  But if you openly oppose whatever a campaign is advertising, I'd expect you'd not want to be a part of it.  That only makes sense, no?

This whole time I have understood the point of others but I think that the grander picture also needs to be understood to see where I am coming from.

That is, my participation in a signature campaign does not make any difference as to whether or not the gambling industry exists or not. My participation also doesn't make any difference in its promotion (as another member will take my place, and thus the advertising is still there).

Besides, if I have it in my signature over a proponent, then at least with my advertising comes warnings about gambling and objective discussion surrounding it, rather than someone who promotes it hardcore or shills.

It is clearly a fine line that I walk. I understand both sides, I just don't see why I should be excluded from the opportunity when (for the reasons stated above), my participation ultimately does not make a difference to the industry.

IF I was a heavy advocate, one who is trying to make change, one who is actively trying to negatively impact the industry, then the level of hypocrisy would be ludicrous...but that simply isn't the case. My existence in this forum isn't to damage that industry, but I am not afraid to point out its flaws and give warnings as there is definitely a lack of it on the forum, probably because of the hand that the industry has over this forum.

However, despite my beliefs about the industry, and the knowledge of the detriment that it can cause, I am fine with accepting the opportunity as my participation makes virtually no difference.

It's clear that this view is not understood by most, and if people would like to view me as a hypocrite, then by all means they can...and believe me, if an opportunity to not be in a gambling campaign arises, I will jump at that opportunity...but for the time being that isn't the case, and the reasons above are enough for me to rationalize my own participation to myself and others.

I think, for the reasons above and the bigger picture, I should not be wholely viewed as a hypocrite. This is one of the only circumstances where a hypocrisy is valid thing to say, if signatures are personal endorsements...but I don't believe that they are.

I think that a true hypocrite would not only join the campaign after expressing disbelief in an industry, but additionally post in a way that is opposite to past beliefs. At least I have not done this, and have no intentions to. I participate in discussions just as I would with/without a signature, and always will.

[Shishir99]

...and believe me, if an opportunity to not be in a gambling campaign arises, I will jump at that opportunity...

This line catches my eye and I guess you haven't said this in any of your previous posts. Have you ever said that you believe gambling is unethical I am wearing the signature because there are no non-gambling campaigns at this moment. I don't think I have seen this from you yet. I am not a big fan of gambling. I do gamble sometimes but later I promised myself that I should quit gambling.

I am also planning to move to non casino campaigns but that should be a reliable one. But while I am wearing the signature of a casino, I shouldn't spread negativity about these platforms.

BTW: Last night BenCodie sent me a PM regarding the trust exclusion. He removed me from his distrust list last night.

[suchmoon]

It is clearly a fine line that I walk. I understand both sides, I just don't see why I should be excluded from the opportunity when (for the reasons stated above), my participation ultimately does not make a difference to the industry.

It's not a fine line at all, not to a normal person anyway. You're way over the line in the hypocritical lunacy territory.

And while no one can really "exclude" you from selling out, these impressive flips of mental gymnastics should probably exclude you from trust lists of sane users of this forum.

[BenCodie]

It is clearly a fine line that I walk. I understand both sides, I just don't see why I should be excluded from the opportunity when (for the reasons stated above), my participation ultimately does not make a difference to the industry.

It's not a fine line at all, not to a normal person anyway. You're way over the line in the hypocritical lunacy territory.

And while no one can really "exclude" you from selling out, these impressive flips of mental gymnastics should probably exclude you from trust lists of sane users of this forum.

Okay, if you want to spin it in that direction you sure can do that. Can't say I'm surprised that you're making this a trust debate when it hasn't touched the topic the whole time...it does make sense though, given most posts I see from you these days is about that topic.

As for directly replying to what you said...
Hypocritical lunacy...I am not a normal person...insane....
wow, very big labels, and big words. I'm (Almost) speechless since usually one would need to do something quite significant to earn those labels. I do not believe this classifies, not even close. We're talking about a paid ad here.

I know that in my circumstance and with all of the provided reasoning as well as all of these discussions, that it is a fine line. You can say otherwise but if it was as clean cut as me being an insane, hypocritical lunatic as you say I am, why is this the first we've heard it after the months of debate and discussing with opinions widely varying?

Also, properly selling out would be adjusting the way I post to be pro gambling. That would be hypocritical lunacy, sure. At that point I'd agree that a negative trust rating or distrust of judgement would be warranted if I did such a thing, as it would mean my words will change for payment. not the case though and there is a big difference between that and the reality of things here.

So, I'm a hypocritical, insane, not normal lunatic by your standards just because of this discussion? Thanks for coming and chiming in with that extremely harsh and irrational opinion, super useful to us all here!

I could only imagine the thunder that would crack down on me if I made the same kind of comment to other members. Heck, I said a very general comment about low IQ and got a 3-day long thread for it...what a joke.

...and believe me, if an opportunity to not be in a gambling campaign arises, I will jump at that opportunity...

This line catches my eye and I guess you haven't said this in any of your previous posts. Have you ever said that you believe gambling is unethical I am wearing the signature because there are no non-gambling campaigns at this moment. I don't think I have seen this from you yet. I am not a big fan of gambling. I do gamble sometimes but later I promised myself that I should quit gambling.

I am also planning to move to non casino campaigns but that should be a reliable one. But while I am wearing the signature of a casino, I shouldn't spread negativity about these platforms.

BTW: Last night BenCodie sent me a PM regarding the trust exclusion. He removed me from his distrust list last night.

I thought it was a given through my actions, I suppose no one would really paying attention to that though.

Of course, if there are equal campaigns with my preferred managers available, there's no doubt about gambling campaigns being my last preference. Managers are pretty fine with the way I post even with where I sit on the gambling fence, which is why I still choose them. If I had to change an opinion for a campaign, I'd not participate. I doubt that will ever happen though as it would be a freedom of speech concern to say the very least

[Rikafip]

This is one of the only circumstances where a hypocrisy is valid thing to say, if signatures are personal endorsements...but I don't believe that they are.

Whether signatures are personal endorsement or not doesn't really matter because by wearing a signature you are getting paid for spreading the awareness about something you think is extremely damaging/negative etc and that's what makes you a hypocrite.

But if it makes it easier for you to rationalise your stance and wear the gambling signature, be my guest.

[CLS63]

I don't think that BenCodie did a thing that is wrong. I think that the main problem here is coins.game's paying someone who has these thoughts to advertise.

For example, let's think that Coca-Cola is organizing an ad campaign on the forum. If I make a post saying "Don't drink cola, it's unhealthy." and if there is an ad of Coca-Cola right below the post this doesn't benefit that company. If I was a bounty manager I would have paid attention to these things.

[1miau]

For example, let's think that Coca-Cola is organizing an ad campaign on the forum. If I make a post saying "Don't drink cola, it's unhealthy." and if there is an ad of Coca-Cola right below the post this doesn't benefit that company. If I was a bounty manager I would have paid attention to these things.

There's a big difference between Ronaldo's "Coca Cola incident" and BenCodie's "Gambling incident".
Ronaldo didn't choose to advertise Coca Cola personally. I don't believe any player of that team choose it because it's a management decision (here UEFA as tournament organizer), which brands get displayed there.
It wasn't Ronaldo's decision that Coca Cola does advertising there.

BenCodie decided to join a gambling campaign solely based on his own decision.

So, completely different from Ronaldo's incident, where the team /organizer made the decision and Ronaldo had no say.


It's often an issue for a team sport.
Players don't have a say, which sponsors will be displayed on their shirts or stadium surroundings because it's a team management decision / tournament organizer decision (here UEFA).
For example, Sebastian Vettel doesn't like the oil industry due to CO2 emissions. But he had to accept that Aramco sponsored Aston Martin's car.
That wasn't Vettel's decision, because it's a team decision.

While for the BenCodie case, BenCodie is the one, who made the call himself to join the campaign and is getting paid for it despite he hates gambling and thinks, it's "unethical".

[CLS63]

There's a big difference between Ronaldo's "Coca Cola incident" and BenCodie's "Gambling incident".
Ronaldo didn't choose to advertise Coca Cola personally. I don't believe any player of that team choose it because it's a management decision (here UEFA as tournament organizer), which brands get displayed there.
It wasn't Ronaldo's decision that Coca Cola does advertising there.

BenCodie decided to join a gambling campaign solely based on his own decision.

So, completely different from Ronaldo's incident, where the team /organizer made the decision and Ronaldo had no say.


It's often an issue for a team sport.
Players don't have a say, which sponsors will be displayed on their shirts or stadium surroundings because it's a team management decision / tournament organizer decision (here UEFA).
For example, Sebastian Vettel doesn't like the oil industry due to CO2 emissions. But he had to accept that Aramco sponsored Aston Martin's car.
That wasn't Vettel's decision, because it's a team decision.

While for the BenCodie case, BenCodie is the one, who made the call himself to join the campaign and is getting paid for it despite he hates gambling and thinks, it's "unethical".

Firstly I'm sorry for not being able to explain myself clearly. I also know that there is a big difference between these two situations. I just used this image as Ronaldo's incident came to my mind after giving the Coca-Cola example.

The thing I actually want to say is that BenCodie doesn't keep his thoughts to himself. He is writing them openly. I think that the real problem here is the truth of there are managers who are accepting him to the ad campaign of gambling companies despite knowing that BenCodie is talking negatively about gambling websites.

Then let me ask you a question like this: Isn't there any fault of Coca-Cola here if Ronaldo shares an Instagram story every day telling people not to drink Coca-Cola and still he signs a sponsorship deal with Coca-Cola?

[1miau]

The thing I actually want to say is that BenCodie doesn't keep his thoughts to himself. He is writing them openly. I think that the real problem here is the truth of there are managers who are accepting him to the ad campaign of gambling companies despite knowing that BenCodie is talking negatively about gambling websites.

Yes, it's a legitimate opinion for BenCodie to be against gambling, he can even write a whole topic how "unethical" gambling is or how it can "destroy lives" and express his opposition to gambling.
But then, he should not wear a gambling signature at the same time, as his opposition against gambling wouldn't be credible at all.

And yes, campaign managers not checking his comments properly are an issue too.
A campaign manager is responsible to select suited participants to ensure that the service is advertised the best way. Campaign managers are getting paid for that by the service.
And obviously, someone who openly hates gambling is not a good pick to advertise a gambling brand.

Then let me ask you a question like this: Isn't there any fault of Coca-Cola here if Ronaldo shares an Instagram story every day telling people not to drink Coca-Cola and still he signs a sponsorship deal with Coca-Cola?

That would be hypocrisy on behalf of Ronaldo, if he thinks it's an unhealthy drink but still signs a sponsorship deal to get money for advertising Coca Cola.
Of course, CocaCola is well advised to nullify their personal sponsorship deal with Ronaldo if Ronaldo doesn't like CocaCola obviously.
(I don't dislike CocaCola but of course, we should not drink it every day  )

[Learn Bitcoin]

And yes, campaign managers not checking his comments properly are an issue too.
A campaign manager is responsible to select suited participants to ensure that the service is advertised the best way. Campaign managers are getting paid for that by the service. And obviously, someone who openly hates gambling is not a good pick to advertise a gambling brand.

Campaign managers want to give better exposure to the brand they are working for. Sometimes, negative promotion gives better exposure than positive promotion does. Let's say BenCodie is opposing gambling and casinos and believes it's unethical while wear the signature. Which is the reason for creating a conflict or let's say a discussion regarding his point of view. Now, the company he promotes is getting more views from his signature as people pay attention to him. He might have negative thoughts about gambling, but the viewers do not.

The company gets the benefit because its primary benefit is to get as many views as possible. If his negative point of view gives them more views, they may like to take it. But it's also true that negative promotions do not always work. I am pretty sure that the campaign managers are aware of his posts and his point of view. But the point they may have is that BenCodie is not a spammer! He has been constructive with his posts and tried to write in detail about his point of view, even though it's controversial.

[1miau]

Sometimes, negative promotion gives better exposure than positive promotion does. Let's say BenCodie is opposing gambling and casinos and believes it's unethical while wear the signature. Which is the reason for creating a conflict or let's say a discussion regarding his point of view. Now, the company he promotes is getting more views from his signature as people pay attention to him. He might have negative thoughts about gambling, but the viewers do not.

Possibly but then, a small reward for anyone else who's disproving his claims would be a nice gesture. Like a special contest campaign (reviews / ad drawing campaign etc.).  
At least, his revent gambling upheaval has caused some of the "criticism" getting debunked.  

[JollyGood]

You have identified the part he (and maybe some others may) have missed, it clearly is not fine line that he walks and it is clearly over the line because the hypocrisy on his part is staggering. After all he did state (and after that he began his vendetta against me) that he was happy to apply to join a signature campaign even though he was convinced it was a scam and not only that he opted to not bring up his concerns to discuss with the community. On the contrary, he applied to join the campaign but was not selected.

Now what he is saying about gambling but then has no issues with promoting it on the basis that if he were not to do it, someone else would and that he should not be missing out on an income even it goes against what he preaches to what he practices because it would make no difference to the industry.

Again, it would have been unbelievable hypocrisy had it come from another member but as he has been hypocritical in the past, it was not that much of a surprise coming from him.

It is clearly a fine line that I walk. I understand both sides, I just don't see why I should be excluded from the opportunity when (for the reasons stated above), my participation ultimately does not make a difference to the industry.

It's not a fine line at all, not to a normal person anyway. You're way over the line in the hypocritical lunacy territory.

And while no one can really "exclude" you from selling out, these impressive flips of mental gymnastics should probably exclude you from trust lists of sane users of this forum.

[Little Mouse]

And obviously, someone who openly hates gambling is not a good pick to advertise a gambling brand.

Why do you think BenCodie someone needs to accept your philosophy in his life and can't have his own and vice versa.

Everyone may have different perspectives and opinions.
I'm trying my best to give maximum exposure to coins.game through the signature campaign. I'm following my strategy for achieving so. If you feel like CM isn't doing the job perfectly, feel free to reach out to them and explain.

And yes, campaign managers not checking his comments properly are an issue too.

This is irritating and unnecessary here I think (not obvious because you are free to say anything you want).

Do you think in the gambling section, everyone is a gambler or likes gambling? Of course, no. There are a lot of users pretending to be a gambler/like gambling just for the sake of filling their weekly posting requirements. The difference between Bencodie and those impersonators is- they are impersonators while Bencodie isn't. He is honest at least.

There are different users in the campaign with different attributes. Bencodie is one of them and he isn't required to post in the gambling section to get paid.

[decodx]

And yes, campaign managers not checking his comments properly are an issue too.
A campaign manager is responsible to select suited participants to ensure that the service is advertised the best way. Campaign managers are getting paid for that by the service.
And obviously, someone who openly hates gambling is not a good pick to advertise a gambling brand.

I've been trying to figure out when BenCodie started hating on gambling so much.  He came back to the forum last December after taking a long break and  seemed like he just wanted to join some signature campaigns to earn money.  He put in an application with Chipmixer like two days after he started posting again.  But before that, I never saw him post anything about gambling on here.  Makes me wonder if he's telling the truth that he's always felt this way about it.  Hard to get a read on what his deal is.

[BenCodie]

And yes, campaign managers not checking his comments properly are an issue too.
A campaign manager is responsible to select suited participants to ensure that the service is advertised the best way. Campaign managers are getting paid for that by the service.
And obviously, someone who openly hates gambling is not a good pick to advertise a gambling brand.

I've been trying to figure out when BenCodie started hating on gambling so much.  He came back to the forum last December after taking a long break and  seemed like he just wanted to join some signature campaigns to earn money.  He put in an application with Chipmixer like two days after he started posting again.  But before that, I never saw him post anything about gambling on here.  Makes me wonder if he's telling the truth that he's always felt this way about it.  Hard to get a read on what his deal is.

I saw the campaigns when I got back and thought "Oh, cool, nice bonus for being here" and tried my luck with CM, despite not knowing how everything was working here at the time.

As for when I started disliking gambling, long ago, as mentioned in other posts I have seen it hurt those close (and once close) to me. The reason I started posting there was the first campaign that required posts there, and I thought... "Well, I'll try my luck being honest until I get kicked"

Honesty doesn't mean attacking gambling, it just means being my version of realistic with myself and the industry ..everyone has different experiences, my third hand experience has shown that ultimately gambling can do serious damage if the wrong kind of person touches it. It can be fine for some, detrimental to others.

I am glad that at least Little Mouse sees the posts as honesty, and not hypocrisy. I believe it's a little more rational to view it that way than to take this one fact, and using to to label me as a complete hypocrite, when I've shown no valid signs of such in my existence here.

In other news, I've come up with an amazing idea, inspired by past ideas and these conversations . I'll post about it sooner or later!

Until then, taking a break (as I have been) from this thread, with posts I feel the absolute need to reply to as an exception.

You have identified the part he (and maybe some others may) have missed, it clearly is not fine line that he walks and it is clearly over the line because the hypocrisy on his part is staggering. After all he did state (and after that he began his vendetta against me) that he was happy to apply to join a signature campaign even though he was convinced it was a scam and not only that he opted to not bring up his concerns to discuss with the community. On the contrary, he applied to join the campaign but was not selected.

Now what he is saying about gambling but then has no issues with promoting it on the basis that if he were not to do it, someone else would and that he should not be missing out on an income even it goes against what he preaches to what he practices because it would make no difference to the industry.

Again, it would have been unbelievable hypocrisy had it come from another member but as he has been hypocritical in the past, it was not that much of a surprise coming from him.

It is clearly a fine line that I walk. I understand both sides, I just don't see why I should be excluded from the opportunity when (for the reasons stated above), my participation ultimately does not make a difference to the industry.

It's not a fine line at all, not to a normal person anyway. You're way over the line in the hypocritical lunacy territory.

And while no one can really "exclude" you from selling out, these impressive flips of mental gymnastics should probably exclude you from trust lists of sane users of this forum.

@JollyGood just stop. There has not been any past hypocrisy instead of your misinterpretation of whirlwind where
- I applied to the campaign when it started
- Saw red flags months later
And which where you completely disregard time, and say that I did both at the same time, and thus I am a hypocrite.

Other than that, the only debate about my hypocrisy is this one in regards to my honesty about the gambling industry while being a part of a gambling campaign.

Let's not forget that the only reason you've hugely exaggerated this post, and so many others against me, is because I had the nerve to point out how much of a robotic stickler you were....which thankfully is less such now, other than the continuous biased comments you add against me at any chance you get.

@suchmoon thanks for enabling this guy with your ridiculously inflated post. Hypocritical lunatic and untrustworthy are not the accurate words to describe me, and that inflated post allowed JollyGood to follow on with his inaccurate post. Maybe be a little bit more levelled with your words next time? Or if you truly think that I'm a hypocritical, dishonest lunatic, then just disregard this post.

[1miau]

And obviously, someone who openly hates gambling is not a good pick to advertise a gambling brand.

Why do you think BenCodie someone needs to accept your philosophy in his life and can't have his own and vice versa.

Everyone may have different perspectives and opinions.
I'm trying my best to give maximum exposure to coins.game through the signature campaign. I'm following my strategy for achieving so.

Of course, everyone can have different perspectives and opinions. I don't know how often I should mention this, again and again. Everyone can hate gambling, they are entitled to have that opinion. But then, the person in question should not get butthurt if their hypocrisy gets called out for participating in a paid signature ad campaign and we called that out, backed up by legitimate proof, like the picture I've posted in the topic of CryptopreneurBrainboss.
We should always remember that BenCodie started the whole discussion when he acted butthurt that other people called him out for his hypocrisy.

So, BenCodie has shown his hypocrisy to everyone (he even opposed cryptofrka's Merit source application) and at the same time, he's not able to face any criticism for his actions.

If you feel like CM isn't doing the job perfectly, feel free to reach out to them and explain.

That's an option, but PMing a bounty manager is something I'm very hesistant because all the other options need to have failed already, like nice explanations for the abusers in question.
PMing a campaign manager for such things might result in more unnecessary spam for campaign managers.
But yes, it's an option.

And yes, campaign managers not checking his comments properly are an issue too.

This is irritating and unnecessary here I think (not obvious because you are free to say anything you want).

It's neither irritating nor unnecessary, it's very important to mention that. Because campaign managers are getting paid to provide a good service and that includes to select the participants, which are suited best to give a service the best advertising.
We have had some very lazy campaign managers here but luckily the whole situation has improved. I can personally outline the practices of icopress, whose professionality is key to provide a good campaign management.
As a service operator, I would hire him without hesitation because I would consider my advertising funds spent very wisely.

Do you think in the gambling section, everyone is a gambler or likes gambling? Of course, no. There are a lot of users pretending to be a gambler/like gambling just for the sake of filling their weekly posting requirements. The difference between Bencodie and those impersonators is- they are impersonators while Bencodie isn't. He is honest at least.

It's a big difference if someone just doesn't care much about gambling or if he's opposing it openly. What are we even talking about, if someone doesn't like gambling, no need to advertise it for him. That's what we are talking about the whole time.
Most gambling sites are know for requiring gambling-related posts and it's just not making any sense to have low-quality posters participating there or even people opposing gambling.
For example, as a gambling service owner, I would go for people like Trofo, cryptofrka or CLS63 as participants over BenCodie any time.

@JollyGood just stop. There has not been any past hypocrisy instead of your misinterpretation of whirlwind where

All the comments written by JollyGood here are very legitimate.
And not just JollyGood was a bit surprised about your hypocrisy, many more members shared the same view.

And yes, campaign managers not checking his comments properly are an issue too.
A campaign manager is responsible to select suited participants to ensure that the service is advertised the best way. Campaign managers are getting paid for that by the service.
And obviously, someone who openly hates gambling is not a good pick to advertise a gambling brand.

He came back to the forum last December after taking a long break and  seemed like he just wanted to join some signature campaigns to earn money.  He put in an application with Chipmixer like two days after he started posting again.  But before that, I never saw him post anything about gambling on here.  Makes me wonder if he's telling the truth that he's always felt this way about it.  Hard to get a read on what his deal is.

Nice reminder, I totally forgot about it.  
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1935179.msg61460727#msg61460727
"Full" means "apply now".  

[Little Mouse]

As a service operator, I would hire him without hesitation because I would consider my advertising funds spent very wisely.

I believe coins.game isn't a service operator owned by you. Better you stop thinking about what coins.game CM is doing here. If you do care, why don't you reach coins.game and explain your point/argument to them and recommend your preferred CM? Explaining here makes no sense as no one from coins.game is here to hear you.

[BenCodie]

As a service operator, I would hire him without hesitation because I would consider my advertising funds spent very wisely.

I believe coins.game isn't a service operator owned by you. Better you stop thinking about what coins.game CM is doing here. If you do care, why don't you reach coins.game and explain your point/argument to them and recommend your preferred CM? Explaining here makes no sense as no one from coins.game is here to hear you.

Just ignore him. It is clear that his opinion is conflicting with the fact that his opinion is not gospel.

1miau what you are failing to understand is that according to your perspective, I am a hypocrite. According to other people's perspective, I am maintaining my honesty and I am not changing my opinion for a signature campaign. The campaign still gets their advertising, while I make valid posts.

If I was in the gambling board quite literally campaigning against using casinos here in bitcointalk, slandering, damaging brands, then yes maybe you would be right. But I do not do that. I only point out when a casino is malpracticing and stating factual information about the gambling industry. So really, I'm not damaging coins game or any legitimate casino, only those who deserve to be called out for their malpractice.

You should stop causing trouble...I think we are at a point in the debate where we have gone deep enough to know that I am not doing anything severely hypocritical, nor damaging to those who choose me to advertise for them. If you want to continue your tangent, go ahead.

Regarding using me as a stupid example, you can defend that all you want. However, it is not legitimate. According to your perspective it is, however it is clear after the discussion in this thread and in my thread that it is not a globally shared perspective, so you have no right to criticize those who have a different perspective to you.

[PytagoraZ]

Honestly, I'm surprised why this thread is still open. I think only 2 people can solve it, the first is LM and the second is Ben, these two people have come and expressed their opinions. Does OP still have other goals? We cannot force what we believe on other people, we are all adults and have our own views on life. Both OP, LM, and Ben, you are great members here, will this continue to be opened until someone's reputation is damaged?