While I do agree, he has sourced and linked all statements
Edit: ._. What does any of that have to do with Andreas, ladybird or Serenity.
I do not care if you have some sort of hate for the blogger, all the statements made in the article are sourced. You’re acting like the blogger is attacking you specifically or something.
Andreas said it simple (While in different words). What does your sex have to do with the project? Absolutely nothing.
all the statements made in the article are sourced.
If only his sources matter, link those instead. Bringing in Lunduke’s article means bringing in his views. That’s not some special Lunduke-hate-boner property, if anyone linked an Israeli news website in a thread about Gaza, I’d call that ridiculous too. Articles reflect their authors, and you happened to pick one of the worst authors in tech.
You’re acting like the blogger is attacking you specifically or something.
Because Lunduke’s ideas can cause real damage to people’s lives, and I’m tired of seeing them. Again, I’m sorry if I come across as affronted—this genuinely, deeply frustrates me. And it’s hard to hold that down.
I don’t blame you. I don’t know how you found the article, or how you read it. But please reconsider sharing Lunduke’s stuff. The man’s one step away from conspiracy theorist, or hell, maybe he counts as one already.
Andreas said it simple (While in different words). What does your sex have to do with the project? Absolutely nothing.
“In different words” is doing a lot of work, there. But that’s a great point you made, sex has nothing to do with the project. So why did he reject a simple change which only made sex even less relevant?
And I ask again: which other side is Lunduke representing that you felt was important to include?
Apologies, I added a lot to my comment in an edit before I saw your reply.
Regardless, which other side is Lunduke representing that’s important to share?
While I do agree, he has sourced and linked all statementsEdit: ._. What does any of that have to do with Andreas, ladybird or Serenity.
I do not care if you have some sort of hate for the blogger, all the statements made in the article are sourced. You’re acting like the blogger is attacking you specifically or something.
Andreas said it simple (While in different words). What does your sex have to do with the project? Absolutely nothing.
If only his sources matter, link those instead. Bringing in Lunduke’s article means bringing in his views. That’s not some special Lunduke-hate-boner property, if anyone linked an Israeli news website in a thread about Gaza, I’d call that ridiculous too. Articles reflect their authors, and you happened to pick one of the worst authors in tech.
Because Lunduke’s ideas can cause real damage to people’s lives, and I’m tired of seeing them. Again, I’m sorry if I come across as affronted—this genuinely, deeply frustrates me. And it’s hard to hold that down.
I don’t blame you. I don’t know how you found the article, or how you read it. But please reconsider sharing Lunduke’s stuff. The man’s one step away from conspiracy theorist, or hell, maybe he counts as one already.
“In different words” is doing a lot of work, there. But that’s a great point you made, sex has nothing to do with the project. So why did he reject a simple change which only made sex even less relevant?
And I ask again: which other side is Lunduke representing that you felt was important to include?
Apologies, I added a lot to my comment in an edit before I saw your reply. Regardless, which other side is Lunduke representing that’s important to share?