You are sadly mistaken if you think I'm attempting to "save" a coin or am emotionally invested in a dataset. This is not an issue of "care." This is an issue that deserves visability so I'm in full promotion of bumping this to the top. My inquieries are not something to "beat." I see that you think that this is some sort of gladiatorial battle that you are "winning" which is why you attempted to turn my words against me in some desperate attempt to discredit me when I am just posing questions and concerns to gunner. Questions are not really something to discredit. You either answer them or don't. I'm not making any claims. As I stated before I found your post particularly biased and non-objective highlighting incomplete "research" to skew information. jbg has said that "lines of code" are not a good benchmark to determine the amount of time dedicated to producing a product.
I can't fault Gunner for badgering or harassing. That's his prerogative an if he can't suffer a potential scammer lightly and thinks this will be an effective method of drawing them out... then that's cool by me. I'd personally prefer that he kept his argument succinct and within the bounds of provable fact. Having said that I do think that he's being or trying to be genuine.
BUT statements like "Brycel is made up by jbg" Yes, I CAN fault gunner for those. He is making an assertion by saying that. This is a belief. Not a fact. Until he can prove this belief it's a fact... This is unreasonable FUD.
It's not a matter of whether or not I believe him. This is a matter of proof and evidence is necessary. Is it a possibility that Brycel is a fabricated entitiy? Sure. But saying that he is without proof is not only speculative, but negligent.
Also continuing to equate lines of code with actual invested time SEEMS to be ignoring the other responsibilities that jbg has that he stated have been time consuming for him.
@ gunner You aren't seeing enough commits for your liking so you think this is a scam. That's a fair statement. And this is clearly of interest to you as you apparently made a new account to address this situation. I'd encourage you to continue with your assessment but refrain from overstepping into statements like the above that you haven't or can't back up.
I wouldn't still be questioning your intentions if you hadn't made your assertions personal and made backless statements presented as truth.
I can't fault Gunner for badgering or harassing. That's his prerogative an if he can't suffer a potential scammer lightly and thinks this will be an effective method of drawing them out... then that's cool by me. I'd personally prefer that he kept his argument succinct and within the bounds of provable fact. Having said that I do think that he's being or trying to be genuine.
BUT statements like "Brycel is made up by jbg" Yes, I CAN fault gunner for those. He is making an assertion by saying that. This is a belief. Not a fact. Until he can prove this belief it's a fact... This is unreasonable FUD.
It's not a matter of whether or not I believe him. This is a matter of proof and evidence is necessary. Is it a possibility that Brycel is a fabricated entitiy? Sure. But saying that he is without proof is not only speculative, but negligent.
Also continuing to equate lines of code with actual invested time SEEMS to be ignoring the other responsibilities that jbg has that he stated have been time consuming for him.
@ gunner You aren't seeing enough commits for your liking so you think this is a scam. That's a fair statement. And this is clearly of interest to you as you apparently made a new account to address this situation. I'd encourage you to continue with your assessment but refrain from overstepping into statements like the above that you haven't or can't back up.
I wouldn't still be questioning your intentions if you hadn't made your assertions personal and made backless statements presented as truth.
Still no good argument here, all I see is some guy who thinks he is good at putting a psychological spin on everything, you're pretty poor at it too, but A+ for confidence.
You have XSPEC in your signature, you're telling me you don't have an investment in this coin?
Also you like throwing around the word discredit, there's nothing to discredit here, you provide no good argument.
Also as for Brycel, if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.
Trying to say prove it to something which the counter itself hasn't been proven is pointless.
Shall we discuss if unicorns exist while we're at it? I would like for you to prove to me that they don't
