it’s a pretty good time, thanks

they voted for W twice.

it’s not like they have a great track record.

it’s because everyone stopped using it, right?

at least months ago?

“This is the part where you’re dense as fuck”

buh-hurrr?

“I said from the get go, I wasn’t trying to do that, you absolute insecure buffoon.”

The crippling insecurity of… let’s check your notes… my having been correct, not getting distracted by your tangents and make-believe and you now furiously insisting that there never was an argument about the main point and all you wanted to do was fruitlessly quibble about one irrelevant point on the number line for a dozen comments.

where shall I ever gain the confidence to stand up to your relentless onslaught?

“Go back and re-read the first comment”

nah,; I got it the first time.

not a brain buster.

“I was literally, as you say, correcting a typo.”

or rounding error, butI know, that’s why I literally said it.

“Your first comment is grossly misleading”

mmm, nah, that’s the one you agreed with, you silly goose.

“Then you went off on insane ad hominem tangents”

here are your quotes:

“you’re dense as fuck.”

“you absolute insecure buffoon.”

you get a confused between what I wrote and you wrote again?

Hey, did I teach you the word “tangent”? look at that, time not wasted!

““Wikipedia has a half billion cash and is evil for asking for more” is very different than…”

it’s also a made-up quote from you, just now, that you made up.

or have you been responding to a different person this entire time and you think you’re making a point to someone with completely different comments?

that would be the funniest thing, if the reason it’s so easy to dispel all of your made-up quotes is because you think you’re talking to a different person.

that would make a certain sense for you, you conflate a lot.

“I’m ambivalent about donating.”

clearly, you have no horse in this game.

you are carefree and feckless.

“Maybe, just maybe, it’s like I’ve been saying…”

We already agreed that it is not and as you freely admit, it is like I’ve been saying from the first comment.

are you talking about the typo/ rounding error that doesn’t affect the outcome and nobody disputed?

Great work on sticking with that mote in a sandstorm.

“as I like to call them…”

you do it! you go ahead and call them whatever you like!

you can call them unicorns or wyverns, whatever strikes your fancy.

“they don’t have decades of cash saved up” isn’t a disagreement with your main point"

I agree, it doesn’t affect my main point at all.

glad we’re doing this.

makes a lot of sense for you to combatively agree with my point over and over again.

“Then you went off on insane…”

how crazy it must seem to you to stick to a single point and not deviate from it, not to get distracted by relentless quibbles, not even to make up quotes or delve into irrelevant rabbit holes that do not affect the outcome!

imagine how much simple being correct in the first place about the actual topic must be.

smoooth sailing.

“You aren’t coming across as cleverly as you seem to think you are.”

virtue of the medium by which I am constrained.

like you said, you agree with my main point straight off the bat, but then you insist on creating fictional arguments so I am limited to responding to you raving and ranting about the number four not being the number three, or feeble insults, or you pretending that cash are somehow not assets.

or pointing out your made-up quotes.

at this point, I’m just helping you polish your turds.

that’s okay, I have time and you have…who knows, I’m sure you have something.

you’re probably great at getting all the toothpaste out of the toothpaste tube, right?

you can be proud of that.

well that’s contemporary, that’s pretty amazing.

I thought it was some talking heads cover band from the '80s.

it’s good.

“You’re a surprisingly dense person.”

Huhh?

“You’ve managed to mistake a news article for a financial audit,”

nope, that’s a straw man you’ve been trying to prop up for a dozen comments because you can’t refute my main point that WMF has plenty of money and shouldn’t be lying to and manipulating donors for more.

“misread a number of comments”

still no evidence for that after a dozen comments? rad.

“misinterpret numbers”

you don’t think three is next to four… that one’s on you.

“think that the phrase “article I agree with” means I don’t agree with”

also nope

so your strategy is to keep making things up?

consistent.

"the second article you shared, which doesn’t get their cash or assets wrong "

see, every time you respond, you make up a whole bunch of stuff, and then right at the end you angrily insist “also, I agreed with you all along!”

fine, I’m glad you can’t refute these things anymore.

You can keep ranting about irrelevant details and then agreeing with my original conclusion.

from the first comment.

I’m fine with that.

“Also, congrats on actually running with “bold of you to assume I can read”.”

thank you!

given that I’ve roundly quashed all of your efforts here, I figured that insult was a facetious, last-ditch attempt of yours to distract from your illogical meandering and thought it would be fun to turn that little insult back on you.

it was fun!

your insults and tangents have that “water off a duck’s back” quality I enjoy.

weird non-sequitur.

how?

they should ask a question if they want a specific answer.

you’ll notice that they complained about not receiving an answer despite 1. they didn’t ask any questions for the first dozen comments or so until I repeatedly taught them how questions work and 2. I responded to the relevant parts of every one of their comments that I hadn’t answered fully before.

their comments do not entitle them to a response, especially if, as in this case repeatedly, their response is flawed, irrelevant or has already been answered.

I correct them, they say " fine. you’re correct but I don’t like it."

I don’t care if they like the truth of the matter or not., and it doesn’t matter If they like being corrected or not, so I’m not going to address that.

If you scroll up, you’ll see that every part of every one of their comments stems from a single rounding error from one number among dozens from two otherwise solid articles for no other purpose than for the commenter to get a foot in the door of denying the actual crux of the argument, which is that Wikipedia does not need your money and them pretending they do to stay in business is manipulative and flat-out false.

that is a straight up fact, and after accepting that in I believe their second comment, they’re trying to deny that they were wrong by pointing out a tangential rounding error.

they’re looking for a gotcha through an insignificant detail.

I think they forgot what they were talking about in the first place to be honest, or that they already conceded the point of the main argument and can only remember their overwhelming personal commitment to that rounding error(or typo? who knows?)

but that’s okay.

it’s funny.

“you’re confusing cash with assets”

you are incorrect again. I wrote assets, because I was talking about total assets(which, this sounds like it’s going to blow your mind, includes cash!)

maybe you aren’t reading closely enough and are conflating my comments with the one sentence in the two articles you don’t like for some weird reason?

your next comment kind of explains another one of your blind spots:

“And, for pedantic ness: “what the fuck are you talking about?””

questions are not pedantic.

you can’t find out what somebody else meant unless you ask them a question.

what you are doing is assuming an answer and then extrapolating off of that, which is very easy for you to attack, but is often wrong because you’re making things up.

The fact that you’ve finally except in my tutoring and have begun asking questions is a huge step forward.

I’ll go look for someone who knows how to golf clap.

“I sort of assumed that basic literacy”

that sounds like it’s your problem, you should stop assuming basic literacy and practice reading.

If you’re just assuming literacy, in your head it sounds good, but out here it is rough for others to deal with you.

"So again, what “mistakes” are you correcting? "

that there’s no way to confuse 300 with 400.

that you can’t tell the difference between an opinion and a number from financial audit.

that because of one incorrect number you’re dead set that both articles are wrong, even though their numbers are from the financial audit that you originally referenced.

you mistake a statement for a question.

there are more, but four of your mistakes should be enough of a start for you to recognize a few of your errors.

don’t want to move too fast for you.

ps, good work on finally asking a question!

all I had to do was teach you what a question was for half a dozen comments comments consecutively and you learned!

that’s progress.

“You seem deeply upset”

nope I forget you’re here until you comment again and I have to correct you all over again.

correcting people is fun for me, so this isn’t particularly upsetting.

“your opinion”

not my opinion, dozens of accurate numbers from two articles, one of those many numbers in one of those articles you have picked out to focus on.

One of the articles overestimated a budget by 100 million, four instead of three, that’s not going to bother me too much.

you seem deeply upset by one source’s overestimate.

“that number seems preposterous…a totally bogus number detached from reality…”

yeah who the heck could write four instead of three?

how could anyone make that mistake? they must be nuts!

adding one number in hundreds of millions of dollars of asset valuation?

how could that even happen?

guess we’ll never know…

“giving some sort of response…”

you keep whining about receiving a response (desperate), but you still haven’t asked a question.

do you know how responses work? (that was a question. see the curly thing at the end? there’s another!)

go ahead, check your comment. not a single question, you’re just rehashing you’re earlier mistakes I have to correct all over again.

which is fun.

I’m down.

i tried to find its origin but it’s everywhere going way back, and it’s the thumbnail for a video, like a video compilation, but the video isn’t it.

oh, got it. what’s it originally from? I mean when you say ancient, what do you mean?

thanks

I haven’t seen it before, so I assumed.

I’m going to miss whenever they fix creepy AI generated hands.

“I’m honestly curious what point you think I’m responding to…”

are you? you don’t sound very curious. you haven’t asked a single question.

“You did actually use grossly inaccurate financial data”

your make-believe is showing.

“Why” was a typo, fixed it.

Don Quixote is a famous literary figure who creates monsters out of his own failing perception and then attacks them.

he’s an analogy of you fabricating points I haven’t made so you have something to struggle against.

leaving my home country for the first time.

all the “immutable facts of life” are a plane ticket way from becoming weird rituals or disagreeable foreign affairs.

Wow, you really like make believe huh?

pretending I said things I didn’t and then arguing against them isn’t the gotcha you apparently think it is, Don Quixote.

but if it makes you feel better, float your own boat.

“a two year old opinion piece on it,”

it’s the first article that popped up with reliable numbers, but there are plenty of articles criticizing the amassed wealth of wmf while they’re asking for money every year.

unsurprisingly, the WMF reports that WMF are spending their money responsibly and are barely managing to sustain themselves, while every journalist that looks into it confirms that WMF have plenty of money and have not needed to do these fundraising drives for years, and will not have to for decades.

$100 million is purely cash on hand, it doesn’t take into account any otger WMF assets.

it’s nice that you’re excited about Wikipedia, and it can be a useful resource, but these are not contentious facts.

Wikipedia has plenty of money, they spend it irresponsibly, and every year they are taking and millions of dollars that they add to that stack.

important to note, Wikipedias value to the end users is contributed two and maintained by unpaid volunteers.

here’s another good article;

https://slate.com/technology/2022/12/wikipedia-wikimedia-foundation-donate.html

I made sure it was also 2 years old because I think it’s funny your ageist about facts.

I’ll talk to you in 50 years and we can settle this.

I don’t anymore.

they do not need your money, and it’s disingenuous of them to imply they do.

The manipulative aspect of their annual fundraisers is very unsettling.

here are some numbers from 2022:

https://unherd.com/newsroom/the-next-time-wikipedia-asks-for-a-donation-ignore-it/

they have at least 400 million in reserves now and the estimate is $10 million a year to maintain the site and pay all their employees.

their higher executives are each paid hundreds of thousands of dollars annually.

they’re not struggling to keep the lights on for the next half century.

from 15, apparently