GiraffeStapler/SpanishMoss2026 wants to play detective
Except you're not a good detective, but a bad one really. What you're doing is playing a rather dangerous game or actually a downright libellous one. You think you're good at connecting the dots but you're not. What you're using is extrapolation. No this is not a wiki term. Extrapolation is a term where you use the results of one set of information with that of another to come to a different conclusion than either. It's considered the worst form of research. What you're doing is finding characteristics in one profile that is common with another and from there on to the next. I see this time and again on your little playground. What I've learned however is that this method is not accurate and that there are a number of unrelated profiles that do in fact have common characteristics and that you can actually 'prove' that even the pope is Donald Trump in this way.
What does this say? I see you patting each other on the backs in your little circle jerk forum but without realising how wrong you probably are on many occasions. There's been a number of these little forums over time and they all eventually die under the same fate. I see yours is about finding some kind of boogeyman. With every edit your try to find some kind of paedophile hinting at it but then saying you're not suggesting they're a paedophile. Well done for veiled insinuations my friend. Wikipedia seems to be doing everything it can to try to suppress this and sweep it under the rug fearing for libel but you still want to continue. And no, hiding something in a member only forum (which I can see btw) doesn't protect you. If you found it problematic like you clearly did you should have removed it.
I took a look at one of your moral panic threads and this is what I found. I think it was about the nude beach or something. A picture of a few individuals of which two appear to be kids. But it's a low-res image at a distance where you can't even make out any individual characteristics. This is the kind of picture you call sexualisation but if you see anything sexual in that kind of image the problem lies with you.
You are right about one thing though. Wikipedia has shown how impressionable it is or how little balls its admins have. You said that they can just take their cues from you lot. And it turns out that's exactly what they did. I followed the thread and events after being alerted to them by one of your members and guess what, to a tee right after you said what they should do they did it. How is that for showing who runs the circus?
You ask what Angie's father would say? Well what would he say if he knew she still owes me a lot and doesn't want to pay me back? That it's the reason I can't fulfil my passion and dreams properly. Everything has two sides so don't speak of what you don't know and as a teacher of mine once told the class don't speak and show your ignorance.
You can cast judgement according to your own made up moral standard that is fine. I've done enough for people so I feel I don't owe society anything and don't owe anybody any explanation or obligation for what I do with anything they give me as I would have been more successful by keeping to myself and not helping anyone.
Oh and you're not so good at reading between the lines either. It is the reason I have to resort to fundraisers and benefactors to reach my goals. Sometimes what is said is just what is written and there is no hidden meaning. People ask why there's such a thing as disclaimers stating the obvious. Well it's because of idiots like you lot.
What does this say? I see you patting each other on the backs in your little circle jerk forum but without realising how wrong you probably are on many occasions. There's been a number of these little forums over time and they all eventually die under the same fate. I see yours is about finding some kind of boogeyman. With every edit your try to find some kind of paedophile hinting at it but then saying you're not suggesting they're a paedophile. Well done for veiled insinuations my friend. Wikipedia seems to be doing everything it can to try to suppress this and sweep it under the rug fearing for libel but you still want to continue. And no, hiding something in a member only forum (which I can see btw) doesn't protect you. If you found it problematic like you clearly did you should have removed it.
I took a look at one of your moral panic threads and this is what I found. I think it was about the nude beach or something. A picture of a few individuals of which two appear to be kids. But it's a low-res image at a distance where you can't even make out any individual characteristics. This is the kind of picture you call sexualisation but if you see anything sexual in that kind of image the problem lies with you.
You are right about one thing though. Wikipedia has shown how impressionable it is or how little balls its admins have. You said that they can just take their cues from you lot. And it turns out that's exactly what they did. I followed the thread and events after being alerted to them by one of your members and guess what, to a tee right after you said what they should do they did it. How is that for showing who runs the circus?
You ask what Angie's father would say? Well what would he say if he knew she still owes me a lot and doesn't want to pay me back? That it's the reason I can't fulfil my passion and dreams properly. Everything has two sides so don't speak of what you don't know and as a teacher of mine once told the class don't speak and show your ignorance.
You can cast judgement according to your own made up moral standard that is fine. I've done enough for people so I feel I don't owe society anything and don't owe anybody any explanation or obligation for what I do with anything they give me as I would have been more successful by keeping to myself and not helping anyone.
Oh and you're not so good at reading between the lines either. It is the reason I have to resort to fundraisers and benefactors to reach my goals. Sometimes what is said is just what is written and there is no hidden meaning. People ask why there's such a thing as disclaimers stating the obvious. Well it's because of idiots like you lot.
41-45, M