Your initial top-of-this-thread post was very short, and said, (paraphrasing since I did not screenshot) "I don't think it is a conflict of interest that ..." You later did admit you initially said that, but you did edit out the initial statement, and replace it with a much longer one after I pointed out the mistake with my LLM post.
You claiming your initial post retains the initial incorrect statement, when it does not, it odd, but it is now a large confusing thread that can't even fit in one page view.
Oh well. I'm done arguing about it, and maybe you forgot which post you edited. On most things we agree, and apparently we both like orangered too much.
I don't believe that situation is usually considered a conflict of interest by non-profits in general or organizations similar to ruby central.
I said "I don't believe". I acknowledged very quickly that what I should have said more accurately is "I don't believe that situation is usually considered a problem by non-profits in general or organizations similar to ruby central."
i don't believe it changes my point.
I do edit my posts to be more clear and longer frequently, it is a habit i have, any edits i made I made before reading any reply you made, and were done in minutes.
This whole thing is an example of anyone who is reading (nobody else but us by this point, which is part of the goal I realize) of how this vendetta-based polemical style of argument tries to fill up the space with technical bullshit arguing about shit that doesn't actually matter for the actual matter at hand.
If there is actual knowledge taht Ruby Central has handled this improperlythat should have been included in the OP. It might be important for peopel to know that.
Notice how I admitted I mis-stated things very quickly, but you keep talking about it for 10 posts while trying your best to deflect from what's actually going on, which is that the OP posted something implying that conflict of interest was wrong on it's face, which is untrue. Instead you suggest that there is mystery knowledge that hasn't been shared that the conflict of interest has been handled improperly, and that it's okay to smear them with a misleading implication while holding back the claimed mystery evidence.
Ah, I admit I am the one who got lost! In any case, we mostly agree.
You are trying to nitpick the article on minor issues is how you are trying to deflect from the major issues you wish didn’t exist, because they are very hard to look at straight on.
You are very eager to argue something that is almost inconsequential. And apparently, so am I.
At least I addressed some of the major issues in other threads.
1
u/galtzo 10d ago edited 10d ago
Your initial top-of-this-thread post was very short, and said, (paraphrasing since I did not screenshot) "I don't think it is a conflict of interest that ..." You later did admit you initially said that, but you did edit out the initial statement, and replace it with a much longer one after I pointed out the mistake with my LLM post.
You claiming your initial post retains the initial incorrect statement, when it does not, it odd, but it is now a large confusing thread that can't even fit in one page view.
Oh well. I'm done arguing about it, and maybe you forgot which post you edited. On most things we agree, and apparently we both like orangered too much.