• Varyk@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    17
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    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.

      • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        “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.

        • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 day ago

          Har har har.

          I’m honestly curious what point you think I’m responding to that you didn’t make.
          You did actually use grossly inaccurate financial data when the tax documents were publicly available.

          • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            edit-2
            1 day ago

            “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.

            • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              15 hours ago

              From your source: "After a decade of professional fund-raising, it has now amassed $400 million of cash as of March”.

              From you: “they have at least 400 million in reserves now”.

              Their financial audit, that I linked to, shows that they have nowhere near that much cash. They don’t even have that much total assets if you count their endowment, real estate, and computer hardware.

              The entire reason for my comment was that I read that number, thought “wow, that number seems preposterous”, and looked up their financial report which shows that indeed, it’s a totally bogus number detached from reality.

              You seem deeply upset that someone might not just accept your opinion at face value, and it seems to be making you respond like an asshole instead of “not responding because you don’t care”, or actually giving some sort of response.

              • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                8 hours ago

                “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.

                • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  2 hours ago

                  You’re confusing cash with assets. $80 million is nowhere near $400 million cash.

                  dozens of accurate numbers from two articles, one of those many numbers in one of those articles you have picked out to focus on

                  Except $300 million cash isn’t in the article I said was a good article.

                  “Dozens” of good numbers don’t really matter when the one you use to make your point isn’t one of them.
                  They don’t have $400 million dollars cash, so they can’t run for 40 years just on cash on hand. Which is the entire thing I was talking about.

                  I sort of assumed that basic literacy meant you could understand that a question doesn’t have to end in a question mark. For example: I’m curious what you think I’m making up.
                  Note how that doesn’t end in a question mark, but is clearly a request for information.
                  And, for pedantic ness: “what the fuck are you talking about?”

                  What “mistakes” are you correcting? I’m referencing their financial audit. Where do you think those news articles you’re not understanding get their numbers?

                  You can’t just pick a number off a page, say “yeah, that one’s big, it’s how much cash they have”, then round up and add $100 million dollars and wave it off as a typo. At best, it’s a typo compounding a gross misunderstanding of the financials.

                  So again, what “mistakes” are you correcting? You keep saying you’re correcting some mistakes, but … You’re not. You haven’t actually done anything other than share some bad data and be offended someone would point that out.

                  • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    51 minutes ago

                    “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.