Reading something written by someone is not the same thing as working with them. Nor is responding inconsistently, relying more on memes and catty one-liners than meaningful discourse.
Why are you so opposed to gathering like adults and talking about all this in some kind of productive manner? I know @MichaelDavid has reached out to you directly – why not answer and acknowledge his sincere attempts to work with you?
There's no fun in that, right? I'm guessing it's far more entertaining to be the scowling rabble-rouser than actually align yourself with others. More exciting to be the controversial, high-profile, self-proclaimed 'hero' than simply one fragment of a team, working towards a common goal.
I'm guessing it's far more entertaining to be the scowling rabble-rouser than actually align yourself with others.
...and more profitable. You got a little haejin over here. Milking comments at $80 a pop, raking in thousands in a matter of days masquerading as some sort of defender while he does far more harm than the problem he's trying to fix.
So if you're willing to work, what's the hold up? Don't you think that you could convince them to drop the post age limit to 3.5 via a live discussion? I think that if we all got our opinions in, perhaps a good vote will solve it.
Just as it wouldn't hurt the bot owners to try your 3.5 day suggestion, it also wouldn't hurt to discuss it in a live panel.
Better yet, who are you willing to work with?
I understand that you discussed these things with yourself, but then it's time to let the rabbit out of the hat and reveal either who you are, or who exactly you've discussed this with, or are willing to discuss it with.
We all want Steemit to survive. We all want to make it better. It's going to take a community effort to do it, not just your own.
I'm afraid you miss my point...again.
Reading something written by someone is not the same thing as working with them. Nor is responding inconsistently, relying more on memes and catty one-liners than meaningful discourse.
Why are you so opposed to gathering like adults and talking about all this in some kind of productive manner? I know @MichaelDavid has reached out to you directly – why not answer and acknowledge his sincere attempts to work with you?
There's no fun in that, right? I'm guessing it's far more entertaining to be the scowling rabble-rouser than actually align yourself with others. More exciting to be the controversial, high-profile, self-proclaimed 'hero' than simply one fragment of a team, working towards a common goal.
...and more profitable. You got a little haejin over here. Milking comments at $80 a pop, raking in thousands in a matter of days masquerading as some sort of defender while he does far more harm than the problem he's trying to fix.
He can't discourse like an adult because his mom took his cell phone and laptop away for being an insolent little piece of shit.
So if you're willing to work, what's the hold up? Don't you think that you could convince them to drop the post age limit to 3.5 via a live discussion? I think that if we all got our opinions in, perhaps a good vote will solve it.
Just as it wouldn't hurt the bot owners to try your 3.5 day suggestion, it also wouldn't hurt to discuss it in a live panel.
Better yet, who are you willing to work with?
I understand that you discussed these things with yourself, but then it's time to let the rabbit out of the hat and reveal either who you are, or who exactly you've discussed this with, or are willing to discuss it with.
We all want Steemit to survive. We all want to make it better. It's going to take a community effort to do it, not just your own.