4 ms·

Mine was more terse, surely. However, it accurately reflected my perspective, based on what I just read. I didn't present it as anything different. Further, I

Mine was more terse, surely. However, it accurately reflected my perspective, based on what I just read. I didn't present it as anything different. Further, I directly answered the question that was asked. Do you not think that is the general interaction structure of funding? Surely, it doesn't cover every case, but do you seriously think it did not happen in this case? No one has yet put forth any other scenario.

rosser 11y ago
Again, the downvotes, and this entire sub-thread have nothing whatsoever to do with the structure of funding, and whether your scenario is more or less plausible than the money being left under their pillows overnight by an army of Oompa Loompas wearing magical flying tutus. It is (IMO) solely and utterly about "U jelly?". If you hadn't opened with that, you may or may not have been downvoted, but none of this discussion would have ensued, because then your post would have been a response to what its parent said, instead of a comment about its parent's author. I don't know how many more flashing neon arrows I can put around the distinction I'm trying to draw here. Either you get it, or you don't.
- jsprogrammer 11y ago
  >Either you get it, or you don't. Yes, I like binary logic. Comments about the parent's author vs. comments about the commitment level of the people behind the parent's content's focused project (which is therefore a comment about the author's of Keybase) I guess there is a distinction there (or at least I just named some distinction), but I'm not really sure why one was judged more acceptable than the other. Edit: Ok, I guess you (or some anonymous down-modder) want more. > and this entire sub-thread have nothing whatsoever to do with the structure of funding This is just plain false. You lampooned my scenario in your first sentence into this sub-thread.
  - leshow 11y ago
    relax, you came across like a frat boy. you got downvoted. stop talking now.
    - jsprogrammer 11y ago
      Ha!

rosser 11y ago

Again, the downvotes, and this entire sub-thread have nothing whatsoever to do with the structure of funding, and whether your scenario is more or less plausible than the money being left under their pillows overnight by an army of Oompa Loompas wearing magical flying tutus. It is (IMO) solely and utterly about "U jelly?". If you hadn't opened with that, you may or may not have been downvoted, but none of this discussion would have ensued, because then your post would have been a response to what its parent said, instead of a comment about its parent's author. I don't know how many more flashing neon arrows I can put around the distinction I'm trying to draw here. Either you get it, or you don't.

jsprogrammer 11y ago
>Either you get it, or you don't. Yes, I like binary logic. Comments about the parent's author vs. comments about the commitment level of the people behind the parent's content's focused project (which is therefore a comment about the author's of Keybase) I guess there is a distinction there (or at least I just named some distinction), but I'm not really sure why one was judged more acceptable than the other. Edit: Ok, I guess you (or some anonymous down-modder) want more. > and this entire sub-thread have nothing whatsoever to do with the structure of funding This is just plain false. You lampooned my scenario in your first sentence into this sub-thread.
- leshow 11y ago
  relax, you came across like a frat boy. you got downvoted. stop talking now.
  - jsprogrammer 11y ago
    Ha!