it’s because everyone stopped using it, right?

at least months ago?

“This is the part where you’re dense as fuck”

buh-hurrr?

“I said from the get go, I wasn’t trying to do that, you absolute insecure buffoon.”

The crippling insecurity of… let’s check your notes… my having been correct, not getting distracted by your tangents and make-believe and you now furiously insisting that there never was an argument about the main point and all you wanted to do was fruitlessly quibble about one irrelevant point on the number line for a dozen comments.

where shall I ever gain the confidence to stand up to your relentless onslaught?

“Go back and re-read the first comment”

nah,; I got it the first time.

not a brain buster.

“I was literally, as you say, correcting a typo.”

or rounding error, butI know, that’s why I literally said it.

“Your first comment is grossly misleading”

mmm, nah, that’s the one you agreed with, you silly goose.

“Then you went off on insane ad hominem tangents”

here are your quotes:

“you’re dense as fuck.”

“you absolute insecure buffoon.”

you get a confused between what I wrote and you wrote again?

Hey, did I teach you the word “tangent”? look at that, time not wasted!

““Wikipedia has a half billion cash and is evil for asking for more” is very different than…”

it’s also a made-up quote from you, just now, that you made up.

or have you been responding to a different person this entire time and you think you’re making a point to someone with completely different comments?

that would be the funniest thing, if the reason it’s so easy to dispel all of your made-up quotes is because you think you’re talking to a different person.

that would make a certain sense for you, you conflate a lot.

“I’m ambivalent about donating.”

clearly, you have no horse in this game.

you are carefree and feckless.

“Maybe, just maybe, it’s like I’ve been saying…”

We already agreed that it is not and as you freely admit, it is like I’ve been saying from the first comment.

are you talking about the typo/ rounding error that doesn’t affect the outcome and nobody disputed?

Great work on sticking with that mote in a sandstorm.

“as I like to call them…”

you do it! you go ahead and call them whatever you like!

you can call them unicorns or wyverns, whatever strikes your fancy.

“they don’t have decades of cash saved up” isn’t a disagreement with your main point"

I agree, it doesn’t affect my main point at all.

glad we’re doing this.

makes a lot of sense for you to combatively agree with my point over and over again.

“Then you went off on insane…”

how crazy it must seem to you to stick to a single point and not deviate from it, not to get distracted by relentless quibbles, not even to make up quotes or delve into irrelevant rabbit holes that do not affect the outcome!

imagine how much simple being correct in the first place about the actual topic must be.

smoooth sailing.

“You aren’t coming across as cleverly as you seem to think you are.”

virtue of the medium by which I am constrained.

like you said, you agree with my main point straight off the bat, but then you insist on creating fictional arguments so I am limited to responding to you raving and ranting about the number four not being the number three, or feeble insults, or you pretending that cash are somehow not assets.

or pointing out your made-up quotes.

at this point, I’m just helping you polish your turds.

that’s okay, I have time and you have…who knows, I’m sure you have something.

you’re probably great at getting all the toothpaste out of the toothpaste tube, right?

you can be proud of that.

well that’s contemporary, that’s pretty amazing.

I thought it was some talking heads cover band from the '80s.

it’s good.

“You’re a surprisingly dense person.”

Huhh?

“You’ve managed to mistake a news article for a financial audit,”

nope, that’s a straw man you’ve been trying to prop up for a dozen comments because you can’t refute my main point that WMF has plenty of money and shouldn’t be lying to and manipulating donors for more.

“misread a number of comments”

still no evidence for that after a dozen comments? rad.

“misinterpret numbers”

you don’t think three is next to four… that one’s on you.

“think that the phrase “article I agree with” means I don’t agree with”

also nope

so your strategy is to keep making things up?

consistent.

"the second article you shared, which doesn’t get their cash or assets wrong "

see, every time you respond, you make up a whole bunch of stuff, and then right at the end you angrily insist “also, I agreed with you all along!”

fine, I’m glad you can’t refute these things anymore.

You can keep ranting about irrelevant details and then agreeing with my original conclusion.

from the first comment.

I’m fine with that.

“Also, congrats on actually running with “bold of you to assume I can read”.”

thank you!

given that I’ve roundly quashed all of your efforts here, I figured that insult was a facetious, last-ditch attempt of yours to distract from your illogical meandering and thought it would be fun to turn that little insult back on you.

it was fun!

your insults and tangents have that “water off a duck’s back” quality I enjoy.

weird non-sequitur.

how?

they should ask a question if they want a specific answer.

you’ll notice that they complained about not receiving an answer despite 1. they didn’t ask any questions for the first dozen comments or so until I repeatedly taught them how questions work and 2. I responded to the relevant parts of every one of their comments that I hadn’t answered fully before.

their comments do not entitle them to a response, especially if, as in this case repeatedly, their response is flawed, irrelevant or has already been answered.

I correct them, they say " fine. you’re correct but I don’t like it."

I don’t care if they like the truth of the matter or not., and it doesn’t matter If they like being corrected or not, so I’m not going to address that.

If you scroll up, you’ll see that every part of every one of their comments stems from a single rounding error from one number among dozens from two otherwise solid articles for no other purpose than for the commenter to get a foot in the door of denying the actual crux of the argument, which is that Wikipedia does not need your money and them pretending they do to stay in business is manipulative and flat-out false.

that is a straight up fact, and after accepting that in I believe their second comment, they’re trying to deny that they were wrong by pointing out a tangential rounding error.

they’re looking for a gotcha through an insignificant detail.

I think they forgot what they were talking about in the first place to be honest, or that they already conceded the point of the main argument and can only remember their overwhelming personal commitment to that rounding error(or typo? who knows?)

but that’s okay.

it’s funny.

“Literally, 99%+ are trainwrecks”

haha, instead of “literally” when you mean “anecdotally”, try “99% of the activists I know are train wrecks”

far less available comment that makes way more sense as supporting evidence for whatever point you’re making.

“you’re a rare exception”

I am! that’s very nice of you to say, eh?

“it’s probably just going to catch again as long as the house burns.”

that’s fine, you keep fixing it. putting out fires every day doesn’t mean you’re not making a difference, it just means there are a lot of fires that need your help.

preface: you know what, writing this was still fun, don’t take my outrage too seriously.

no wait, don’t take the outrage too personally.

take the outrage seriously, but not personally.

“Activists are always trainwrecks personally.”

objectively untrue. in fact, I’m an activist and I’m killing it.

Stop making these obviously incorrect absolute statements.

absolute statements are never correct (this is a joke. notice how I made an absolute statement about absolute statements being never correct).

some people are train wrecks. some people are not.

it took you so long to write this response and you get basic facts incorrect in the second sentence.

geez.

sorry, you interrupted me in the middle of macgruber and you start off from such an indefensible, inaccurate point right off the bat.

“I don’t think I was ever like that exactly”

you don’t think you were exactly like an activist train wreck analogy that you just made up that nobody accused you of being?

Great. super relevant stuff you got going.

I also don’t think you were ever exactly a tap-dancing hippopotamus, another thing nobody was talking about.

“We don’t change things for the better perceptibly.”

If you really are a volunteer and not making a difference, that sucks.

maybe try firefighting? or americorps? something that you’ll be able to perceive as directly helpful with each action.

“…I’m just ignoring that now.”

Great, thanks for ignoring it so much. you wrote a bunch of paragraphs about it.

“Where we can maybe exchange useful information is on optimism.”

noooo thank you, we are not on the same level to be able to exchange useful information.

you’re a total negative Nelly.

If you want help or a different perspective, you can ask for it, I do not need anything from your side, thank you for the oblique offer.

We aren’t working together.

I am proactively pointing out that global genocide is an unreasonable punitive device, you are arguing that hey, the eldritch God advocating for genocide makes some points.

look, you’re in the negotiation phase where you’re trying to find common ground, but you should probably give up because none of the other phases have worked for you.

you previously thought there were arguments to be made for genocide, now you’re rethinking your position.

that’s great!

that’s literally all I was trying to do with my comment, remind everybody who’s making cynical pro-genocide comments that as practical measures or even as a “joke”, none of the arguments make sense and believing that they do just shifts you further toward the authoritarian powers trying to crush your spirit and sense of community.

you eventually responded correctly by critically re-examining your beliefs.

that’s great.

I’m going back to magruber.

“you’re confusing cash with assets”

you are incorrect again. I wrote assets, because I was talking about total assets(which, this sounds like it’s going to blow your mind, includes cash!)

maybe you aren’t reading closely enough and are conflating my comments with the one sentence in the two articles you don’t like for some weird reason?

your next comment kind of explains another one of your blind spots:

“And, for pedantic ness: “what the fuck are you talking about?””

questions are not pedantic.

you can’t find out what somebody else meant unless you ask them a question.

what you are doing is assuming an answer and then extrapolating off of that, which is very easy for you to attack, but is often wrong because you’re making things up.

The fact that you’ve finally except in my tutoring and have begun asking questions is a huge step forward.

I’ll go look for someone who knows how to golf clap.

“I sort of assumed that basic literacy”

that sounds like it’s your problem, you should stop assuming basic literacy and practice reading.

If you’re just assuming literacy, in your head it sounds good, but out here it is rough for others to deal with you.

"So again, what “mistakes” are you correcting? "

that there’s no way to confuse 300 with 400.

that you can’t tell the difference between an opinion and a number from financial audit.

that because of one incorrect number you’re dead set that both articles are wrong, even though their numbers are from the financial audit that you originally referenced.

you mistake a statement for a question.

there are more, but four of your mistakes should be enough of a start for you to recognize a few of your errors.

don’t want to move too fast for you.

ps, good work on finally asking a question!

all I had to do was teach you what a question was for half a dozen comments comments consecutively and you learned!

that’s progress.

“You seem deeply upset”

nope I forget you’re here until you comment again and I have to correct you all over again.

correcting people is fun for me, so this isn’t particularly upsetting.

“your opinion”

not my opinion, dozens of accurate numbers from two articles, one of those many numbers in one of those articles you have picked out to focus on.

One of the articles overestimated a budget by 100 million, four instead of three, that’s not going to bother me too much.

you seem deeply upset by one source’s overestimate.

“that number seems preposterous…a totally bogus number detached from reality…”

yeah who the heck could write four instead of three?

how could anyone make that mistake? they must be nuts!

adding one number in hundreds of millions of dollars of asset valuation?

how could that even happen?

guess we’ll never know…

“giving some sort of response…”

you keep whining about receiving a response (desperate), but you still haven’t asked a question.

do you know how responses work? (that was a question. see the curly thing at the end? there’s another!)

go ahead, check your comment. not a single question, you’re just rehashing you’re earlier mistakes I have to correct all over again.

which is fun.

I’m down.

yeah, anecdotally people use all kinds of oils, mct oil among them, coconut oil is just the most popular. I think people like it because it’s so easy to get organic, one ingredient coconut oil for cheap

so they discovered that the algorithm loves one thing.

more than? how?

The apple shape is pretty indicative for me.

aren’t you tired of being a liberal?

don’t you want to be a liberal who doesn’t understand the point of politics?

free your mind from pesky knowledge and political context, all it does is get in the way of forming autocratic groups and exploiting the people around you!

judging by your username, you share certain similarities with Bruce Willis.

and he seems to forget who he is these days, so yeah you might actually be Bruce Willis.

no, I’ve never heard covid victims called “those left behind”, that is a rather morbid bit of prose from your part of the world.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xv-A6rSUM8c

this video convinced me that oil pulling is antimicrobial even though the professed conclusion of the video, as espoused by the dentist working with the YouTuber, is that oil pulling doesn’t work, even though there are less bacteria present after the oil pulling.

before oil pulling: every squiggly purple line inside the empty spaces is a separate spirochete.

I counted well over a dozen spirochetes wiggling around before the oil pulling.

it zooms in on one little corridor near the end of the “before” microscope analysis, and in just that one little corridor, you can plainly see half a dozen spirochetes wiggling together.

after The oil pulling:

there’s very clearly only one in the entire slide, and the dentist mentions this specifically, but says since there are any spirochetes at all, there’s no difference before and after.

after the oil pulling with that on screen, the dentist specifically says “there’s no such thing as one mouse” while examining the patient after oil pulling, so you know he’s looking at one spirochete on screen, and you can also plainly only see one on screen, while before the oil pulling, the dentist videos are full of spirochetes, zoomed in or out.

by what you can count on screen before and after, there are more than 90% fewer bacteria found after the oil pulling, so it seems like oil pulling works for gum disease, at least for this patient.

I’d love to see more studies on this.

or a follow-up to that video.

you don’t have to use a lot, like 1 tbsp is fine, and then you just swish it around.

it’ll be pretty difficult to keep tge oil inside your mouth while brushing, but I don’t see why you can’t try it out, who knows?

since there aren’t a lot of scientific studies, there aren’t a lot of dogmatically proven methods, so you could be the first!

in fact, if it works, tell me, because I am going to start oil pulling again because I was very encouraged by the results and after the first couple times it doesn’t even feel that gross, it’s just a routine thing like brushing your teeth in the morning.

and I was kind of lacking days ago about it, so I think I’m going to do mornings and evenings and just try and really see a difference.

I’m a fingerist.

no…no I don’t like that word.

a digitist.

less upsetting.

“bad faith”?

I’m responding directly to your questions and quotes with factual information and course-correcting your tangents, implications and assumptions.

that’s not bad faith.

“you’re…calling someone saying “smile more” literal rape”

nope, you are making that up.

or making a connection that isn’t there.

“you do you”

i do!

“rape isn’t as bad when women do it”

this is literally your argument for why women shouldn’t be upset about sexual assault.

because it didn’t bother you when women “raped” you.

If it makes you upset, don’t make that argument.

I couldn’t answer about the coconut milk. you mean the thick opaque milk, right, not coconut water?

it’s specifically swishing around the coconut oil for 5 to 15 minutes everyday that people say leaches out the yellow color, but I haven’t heard anything about the cumulative effect of long-term coconut milk drinking.

I’ll add that most YouTube dentists say that oil pulling doesn’t work, but they all specifically mention that it can’t work because there are not enough scientific studies on it, which isn’t a great argument.

and after meeting a few people who have done it and seeing their teeth gradually whiten to movie-star white, plus my own very debatable 1-2 shade whiter after a couple months, I’m convinced that it does work on some level.

especially because the people I know are hippies who would never go to the dentist or whatever, so I doubt they got their teeth whitened artificially.