^ jamessk is on the money. I hope awareness comes to a point where sites that do this cannot ignore people’s concerns simply by condemning those who disagree


An Open Response to Bodhisattva/ZOMB/THEZOMB

If you want to find why people are angry with or have a "vendetta" with Zomb as you call it, it really does not take a great deal of sophisticated probing to determine that people's rational resentment towards Zomb stems from a common root: Zomb's unethical behavior. With this shallow and condescending response, bodhisattva takes a page directly from the George W. school of fallacy by suggesting that those who disagree are guilty of trying to spread hate, as though we are drooling idiots incapable of distinguishing between the act of hate and the act holding people accountable for questionable activities, especially when they are entrusted with considerable sums of money.

Another parallel can be drawn with bodhisattva’s allusion of Tapers as “dictators” which is fairly Orwellian. Think about it:

The Zomb exacts stringent control over the public discourse within its forum to root out dissenters.

The taper produces; only to have his work disfigured and dismantled by the whim of parasites.

The Zomb controls and seeks acquisition; using regulation to ensure its role as a gatekeeper of bootleg access.

The taper does not control or seek power; but modestly requests that his creation be distributed in the manner he finds appropriate.

Who’s the dictator? People should determine for themselves, after all, isn’t it the dictator who relies on vapid labels such as “communists,” “trolls,” “terrorists,” “scum,” to instill what people should think without determining their own rational convictions?

On the subject of respect, I had asked a reasonable question about your definition of “donation” so we could have a common understanding of terms and you responded, "Thats all speculation dumb ass." That’s disrespectful. Raping the Taper's of their resources and disincentivizing them from taping in the future is (for lack of a better phrase) to take a giant shit on the smashing pumpkins trading community at large. That’s disrespectful. We still have not come to terms on the same definition of "donation" but I would surmise that Zomb's definition of "donate" is just as faulty as its definition of "slander" (remember, verbal not written) which Zomb purports that dissenters are guilty of (without citations)

Are questions relating to Zomb’s definition of “donations” disrespectful for the fact that they might shed some light and honestly onto a topic that has been charged with irrational and emotional rhetoric that merely serves to obscure everyone’s understanding?