Get Approved on subscribestar.adult

[peterppp]

why do you think he emboldened the word funding?

anyway it doesn't matter. I wouldn't have said anything but you made a post specifically to wonder about it so I explained.

again, he said what i posted from patreon, only with his own words. so i was supposed to assume you couldn't understand a relatively simple english text from patreon and put the word fund in bold for you to make you understand it? like this?:

"Because you are raising funds on Patreon, we may be held accountable for what you do with those funds, so we may also look at what you do with your membership off our platform. As a result when we talk about “On Patreon,” it means the creations you are funding on and through Patreon. When reviewing a page, we look at how creations are shared, where the page is linked to and where the traffic comes from. "

i guess i assumed you knew it was about the funding from the start because it's pretty common knowledge and you usually seem knowledgable. re-read my posts and maybe they make more sense with that in mind. otherwise, i don't know what you've been smoking. no harm done, i'm just confused about your lack of understanding

 

[anne O'nymous]

why do you think he emboldened the word funding?

God ! I found someone who understand what I write. My case isn't as desperate as I thought

 

[woody554]

so i was supposed to assume you couldn't understand a relatively simple english text from patreon and put the word fund in bold for you to make you understand it?

no, that's not it at all. I've explained it now twice to you. anneonymous alluded to it. I pointed you back to it. you're not getting it so you keep thinking we're the idiots here. but the problem is not us it's you. and I'm sorry you're not getting it, but it really doesn't matter.

I have a rule for online arguments that you should never answer more than once to someone who doesn't get it. you first say what needs to be said, then if someone asks about it you try to clarify it one more time. after that, my overwhelming experience over 30 years of online arguments is that NO amount of walls of text, no amount of clarification will ever make them get it. everything after first two messages are wasted effort, it'll never ever work.

and this pointless back n forth that's not going anywhere is the perfect example why breaking that rule almost never amounts to anything useful. it's simply waste of everyone's time, even yours.

edit: I feel like this post might read more snarky or passive aggressive than it is, but I honestly don't mean it even a little.

 

[peterppp]

no, that's not it at all. I've explained it now twice to you. anneonymous alluded to it. I pointed you back to it. you're not getting it so you keep thinking we're the idiots here. but the problem is not us it's you. and I'm sorry you're not getting it, but it really doesn't matter.

I have a rule for online arguments that you should never answer more than once to someone who doesn't get it. you first say what needs to be said, then if someone asks about it you try to clarify it one more time. after that, my overwhelming experience over 30 years of online arguments is that NO amount of walls of text, no amount of clarification will ever make them get it. everything after first two messages are wasted effort, it'll never ever work.

and this pointless back n forth that's not going anywhere is the perfect example why breaking that rule almost never amounts to anything useful. it's simply waste of everyone's time, even yours.

edit: I feel like this post might read more snarky or passive aggressive than it is, but I honestly don't mean it even a little.

you're right, i don't get it, because you haven't explained anything. you've just said i missed the point and that i don't understand and asked me a question. clearly there is some misunderstanding here but if you want to explain something, then say it plainly, not the beating around the bush you're doing and then saying you've explained it. that's just dishonest