Ha ha ha! Wow! You can read! So now, let’s try “critical thinking”. You cited what the rule was, now can you tell me WHY the rule is the rule?

You might want to learn what quotations are for. Everything you ‘quoted’ was not, in fact, something I said. I never used equality, at all. That’s your own flawed reading. I’m sorry you’re having a rough go of semiotics, but feel free to try again! The only way to fail is to give up before you understand.

In all cases? In every scenario?

If you’re going to try to out-pedant the pedant to try and sound smart, then you should know WHY people think that the period goes inside the quotation marks.

lol cope

Analogies are about structure, not magnitude. At no point did I equivocate. What you’re doing, here, is dishonest. You’re not engaging with what I said, but what you want me to have said. Feel free to carry on, just don’t think there’s any value in including me in your flights of fancy.

At no point did Jerykk’s comment warrant being outright insulted[...]

That’s all fine. Your judgements on what constitutes, “direct” and “forceful” notwithstanding.
I make no comment on whether the commenter was being constructive, or not. But as for whether ne was being “mean”, I think you are (or were if you’ve reassessed) incorrect.

It’s prudent not to conflate “direct” and “forceful” with “mean”.

That’s not what is being attempted, with the blockchain. It’s not *just* a channel for revenue; it’s a model of decentralized authority to create channels for revenue. Again, it’s an entirely separate financial system, with digital banks, digital lenders, and entire financing contracts. If you’re honestly interested,…

You’d figure folks like Wright would be smart enough to see the transparent grift that is crypto, but I guess not.

He’s just omitting the “correctly” precedent. They are being “correctly considered controversial” in many areas of the internet. And being incorrectly considered “neutral” by the ignorant and those with something to gain by keeping the ignorant ill-informed.

Oh, that’s lovely. I can’t wait to put on my best ‘narcissist hipster’ affectation and say “Oh, you’re still in to non-fungible tokens? I’m more into non-fungible experiences.”

Right? That’s a great example where there are on real stakes and nobody is being taken advantage of.

I never spoke to the morality of it. He should be held accountable by whatever agreed-upon accountability the community and events have. Like I said: I don’t care. I’m just imagining a scenario and being amused by that unlikely scenario.

touch grass, winner.

Not a likely scenario, I know, but I think it would be fucking hilarious if this guy was cheating all that time in order to actually get “better” at chess.

cool

The WWE doesn’t have to have say in a person’s tattoos in order to have say in their broadcasts. They could force him to cover his tattoos.

That “just really hard to remove” is a non-trivial qualifier. The fact that no reasonable person could be expected to think of a tattoo as something “easy to remove” means that it must be observed as a special status. Tattoos materially affect a person’s likeness in a non-trivial way. That should be considered as a…