[...]
You missed my question about how two wrongs make a right.
This whole two wrongs make a right, is old terminology that does not apply to every situation.
There are some cases, when you are going to have to fight, and not fair, for an equal opportunity.
If you breaking the rules, is in virtue, of improving many peoples lives, then the rule needs to be broke.
Its fairly, simple. Life, is about different combinations.
In short, "I do that because PP do that first"?
Then on this case, I'll beg to challenge your opinion and that what yahoo said is indeed correct. Spamming the forum and breaking its rules with sole purpose to revolt against those who claimed your platform is scam [read: lashing out] is the textbook example of
two wrongs fallacy.
Further, your decision to spam the forum just to retaliate does not only show signs of immaturity, which ultimately lead to questions your reputation, it is also pointless, in a sense that "no spamming" rule can still be hold intact while achieving the "virtue".
So, in this specific case, two wrongs
does not make a right.
So, you indirectly say that the seed is already there, people already questions the credibility of your system, with or without the "FUD" thrown at you?
Correct. Unlimited Money Generator, because of all the present scams, is enough to scare many away. This is fine, but with other users, supporting that narrative, it will never suffice.
Viewed from an angle of someone who are extremely sure his innovation is revolutionary and already invites a lot of attention [that he doesn't need this forum, because his platform already gather enough visitors from other platforms], it is rather pessimistic statement, is it not? Predeterminedly sure that other will be swayed and led to believe a narrative pushed by someone?
I don't think the two can coexist; the cocky attitude "I am a revolutionarist and here to bring salvation" and the pessimistic view of "the community will be scared and rather dubious to join due to all of the present scams and someone pushing a narrative." Either you're sure that your platform will flourish, that PP's statement doesn't matter, or you're rather unstable on your own two feet yet that you need all the support to help you flourish.