Look, I know a woman who is very ugly. I find it unpleasant to look at her face. If I were to say to her face: 'But you're ugly! I'm disgusted to look at you', I would be stating a fact. By this I mean to exemplify that there are contexts in which it is not reasonable to state certain facts, and above all to state them in a certain way.
That's a matter of perception. At same time, maybe that woman would appear as very beautiful to someone else. But the above information is pure statistics: that campaign lasted 10 days with that high payment.
What was Royse777's reaction? To say that he is going to counterattack, obviously.
Of course. As any wise man would do when confronted with the truth. Like
this one.
The way you said things was not conciliatory, that's obvious.
What should I conciliate with Royse? I was not in his campaign; I was not affected by his decision to (pick-?)pocket the funds. However, I can not stay blind to such actions. I just
stated once that he should show more respect to other campaign managers, especially to old ones (like Hhampuz) and that
constantly bragging himself is only making him to look ridiculous.
So
he disrespects other campaign managers;
he brags himself around with how much money he has (and which do not belong to him);
he brags himself for running best paying campaign (which lasted 10 days);
he does not pay the participants;
he constantly looks for various conflicts (like
Royse v Poker Player;
Royse v icopress (+ the fact that he locked that thread suddenly, with no explanation);
Royse v TL (where he did not even realize that he's complaining for a feedback left by a non-Dt user, which does not influence his Trust score anyhow);
Royse v JG... +
his involvement with a proven scam; + the fact that
he was banned for sending unsolicited PMs (LOL!)) -- and then
I should conciliate with him? Conciliate what?