True, but I wish the person I replied to was being honest with himself, because his implication are seemingly still directed to only Papavera himself
Hey, I feel you on that one. Introspection can be a difficult thing. I have a sneaking suspicion that's something that a lot of Phil's current whales are lacking, or at least afraid of.
The few that engage with the criticisms thrown at Phil tend to deflect them and try to refocus on the short comings of detractors, neglecting that detractors aren't a hivemind, whereas Phil is one individual operating with individual intent. Introspection would, you'd think, result in those people realizing that walking away would make both the detractors disappear from their lives, as well as the parasite latched onto their wallet, solving both problems, and leaving a deeply flawed individual to perhaps actually have to learn from his mistakes for once.
Again we're not talking about Phil; I don't need no "lore" mentor or an armchair psychologist to tell me what he consists of.
My bad, I just know your initial point was to correct some armchair lore to the person you were critiquing... I was also providing the correct info to the person who originally mentioned Papavera. I should have clarified. Around here, some of us like to set the record straight with accurate information rather than just saying someone is cognitively biased. I understand coming from a climate like, say, Phil's chat, correct information, such as basic math, is sometimes only going to undermine the supposed larger point and is perceived as a personal attack.
The only reason that Phil is a cornerstone when it comes to examining his scamming and begging schemes, is because he's constantly documenting himself on an almost daily basis.
That may have been the initial case. The problem is, Phil now refuses to document himself. We do that. And then what happens is that it becomes readily apparent that he is lying to purposefully deceive his audience. I don't know if you've had a chance to look at the bank leaks (because, you know, you're totally not an individual who previously acknowledged them and their implications about Phil), but it is confirmation that Phil has/is committing fraud. Just as he is currently lying about being able to pay his bills - he spent over $1k on Champions 2 weeks ago. So we have concrete facts, it's not baseless. I notice you didn't address the facts there, just glossed over them for the 'moral' argument. Seems like a recurring issue in your response.
Now, you may also not be aware that the site has pages and sub-forums dedicated to many of the other internet personalities who are operating scams. We just happen to haunt this particular part (as do you). I don't have to pay to do so, just as a sidebar. So moral relativism isn't an issue - I don't think anyone should get away with the stuff that Phil does, but I can't be everywhere, so I have some fun here. It'd be great if people, people who clearly are aware that he's scamming because they're relying on the argument 'well other people do too', stopped supporting him, and then I could spend more time talking about other scammers.
But I guess that's another unfulfilled wish. Because any time a whale (which I'm sure you're not), tries to walk in here after all the leaks, they quickly find that they don't have a leg to stand on. So they run back to Phil and give him more money to own us. Which then just proves the point that they're incapable of introspection. As I've said previously, they're incapable of acting in their own best interests, or in Phil's. If not for some personal sense of 'justice', why give him money at all? If not for some personal sense of moral relativism, why give him a pass? Your response seems more like projection than introspection, really.
It's also the same line of thinking used by Madara. Hm. Questionable company. But he at least has the defense that he doesn't give money to Phil (anymore).
"OIC only wants attention, if we ignore him he'll go away"
OIC makes one post and I have to scroll through 9 fucking people in a row responding to him.
Don't know what you mean. JimJimJim isn't OiC, he said so himself. I'm just replying to a particularly dumb Phil fan.
Incidentally, I'll move this all to the containment thread in a little bit. Just in case we're being lied to. Woof woof.
