Just Donated $200 To Send Hellouser To Japan.

[nameless]

do·nate
verb
give (money or goods) for a good cause

But the smart play is still to NOT donate/give. Why pay for something if you can have it for free? The smart play is to not donate and to let other people donate the money you would have given if you had donated - ride other people's backs. Lots of people are doing it. There are two different kinds of people in this deal:

1. The people who don't donate. These people ride other people's backs and get the HLC information for free.

2. The people who donate. These are the people who's backs are ridden by the people who don't donate.

If you donate then other people ride your back. If you don't donate then you're one of the people who ride other people's backs and get the info for free.

In this deal, you either ride the mule or you ARE the mule.

 

[nameless]

the whole forum is dominated by this guy who doesn't even have a name. totally sick. constantly repeating himself all day long...

1. You're arguing that it's "totally sick" for a man to use the name "nameless" at a site where everyone is using a fake name. How stupid.

2. You knock me for allegedly repeating myself even though all of your posts (in the threads I post in) say the same thing - they all say that you don't like me. We all get it already. You don't like me. But that won't stop you from posting it again, and again, and again, ad nauseam, while out of the other side of mouth you whine about me repeating myself. What a jackass.

 

[Abelibano]

For f*****g sake, how can you be a sucker by donating 5$??? You are really petty Nameless...

 

[nameless]

For f*****g sake, how can you be a sucker by donating 5$??? You are really petty Nameless...

You raise a good point Abelibano. I admit it, it is petty of me to say that someone is a sucker if he donates some small amount of money like $5. It's petty but it's still true. Even if you only donate $5 you're still letting the non-contributors ride your back. And the non-contributors are trying to do exactly that - they're trying to ride your back.

 

[thomps1523]

You raise a very good point Abelibano. I admit it. It is petty of me to say that someone is a sucker if he donates some small amount of money like $5. It's petty but it's still true. Even if you only donate $5 you're still letting the non-contributors ride your back. And the non-contributors want to ride your back.

Can this thread get locked @Admin , or can we all settle on a gentleman's handshake that we won't keep this awful thread alive with responses?

 

[nameless]

Can this thread get locked @Admin , or can we all settle on a gentleman's handshake that we won't keep this awful thread alive with responses?

Why shouldn't potential contributors be told that non-contributors like yourself are trying to ride their backs? You're trying to prevent potential contributors from receiving full disclosure.

You even pressured Admin to contribute more money after he already contributed $150, and you contributed nothing. You publicly called out Admin saying that his $150 donation was not "decent" so you could make him feel small and pressure him to donate more money, even though you haven't donated anything. Here in italics and highlighted is that post by you to Admin:

Thomps1523:
I'm actually surprised admin isn't making a decent donation considering the content produced will actually be helping him financially in the form of driving traffic.

Potential contributors should think on Thomps1523's own words in the post he made to Admin. Thomps1523 is the King of the moochers. He actually pressures other people to donate even though he himself will not donate. What a piece of work he is. Do not listen to this sponge's attacks on me. I'm trying to make sure potential contributors have all of the facts before they make the decision to contribute. Thomps1523 wants to keep you potential contributors uninformed so you will make contributions without learning that he wants to sponge off of you. He's trying to turn YOU into a mule so he can ride YOUR back.

 

[nameless]

but you can't stop the nameless parasite to create a new thread. he always comes back with his polluting crap.

What's wrong with potential contributors being informed that other posters are trying to ride their backs? You want to stop me from giving full disclosure to potential contributors.

 

[givemeregrowth]

Man, you're legit retarted.

 

[nameless]

I'm not from the US neither am I from Russia, but you just proved your idiocy again

I don't really care where you're from. My true point is that quieting dissenting voices = censorship.

 

[nameless]

his insanity is growing with each day. it's out of control.
imagine you have to work with such a psycho in the same company or have him as neighbour.
no wonder he never gets a woman interested in him. staying alone forever.

I do have a few women interested in me, thank you.

There's nothing insane about informing potential contributors that some posters are trying to ride their backs. It happens to be true.

 

[Afro_Vacancy]

@nameless have you thought of getting therapy?

Your behaviour in these two threads is unfortunate. I don't even know what you're doing honestly. This isn't a situation that warrants anger, and even if it, it wouldn't be worthy of your anger.

You say that you're pissed off about people not wanting to donate, but that makes no sense.

 

[nameless]

@nameless have you thought of getting therapy?

Your behaviour in these two threads is unfortunate. I don't even know what you're doing honestly. This isn't a situation that warrants anger, and even if it, it wouldn't be worthy of your anger.

You say that you're pissed off about people not wanting to donate, but that makes no sense.

Why would I get therapy exactly? What exactly is wrong with telling potential contributors that some people aren't donating because they want to ride the backs of the people who do donate? It happens to be true. What's wrong with telling people the truth?

 

[nameless]

your mom and sister don't count. don't fool yourself. not a single normal woman would tolerate you for more than a week.

I don't have conversations about non-contributors trying to ride the backs of contributors away from this site. This is the only place I'm having this conversation because this is the only place I see it happening.

One women who wants to get together with me is taking a trip with me on Amtrak. I informed her that she would have to chip in on the trip. She got two BofA Amtrak credit cards so she could get some rewards points to chip in her share for the Amtrak sleeper car. She did not even try to get out of chipping in. She agreed with me that she should chip in and she got the two credit cards so she could get the rewards points to chip in. It wasn't a big issue to her when I informed her she had to chip in. And she's not my sister or my mother. She was a co-worker. She's known me about 12 years.

 

[nameless]

yeah, tell your fairytale stories as long as you want. as if there's a woman who wants to get with you. ridiculous and laughable.
almost as ridiculous as your convenient story about your sudden surgery which just happened exactly when it was time to donate.

She works for the federal government. She's a divorcee. I haven't asked her how old she is but I think she said she's 38 or 40 years old. She's no more than 40. Her son just reached 18 but she got married young. She's a good woman, and moral women don't mind if a man says he needs her to help pay for things they're both going to share. The only women who want you to pay for everything are women who want to use you for money. The only women who get mad about being informed (politely and diplomatically) that she has to help pay for stuff are women who want men to pay for everything. Do you really think I would allow a woman to use me for money? Not a chance. If she's sincere and moral she won't get upset about having to help pay for stuff, if you word it right.

 

[nameless]

@nameless have you thought of getting therapy?

Your behaviour in these two threads is unfortunate. I don't even know what you're doing honestly. This isn't a situation that warrants anger, and even if it, it wouldn't be worthy of your anger.

You say that you're pissed off about people not wanting to donate, but that makes no sense.

Afro_Vacancy, I'm just trying to make sure that potential contributors are aware that there are posters who are trying to ride their backs. It's my recollection that you yourself have agreed that some posters are not contributing without a good reason. If you also think that is happening then why shouldn't I be allowed to tell potential contributor that it's happening? What's wrong with letting potential contributors know this information in the name of full disclosure?

 

[Afro_Vacancy]

Afro_Vacancy, I'm just trying to make sure that potential contributors are aware that there are posters who are trying to ride their backs. It's my recollection that you yourself have agreed that some posters are not contributing without a good reason. If you also think that is happening then why shouldn't I be allowed to tell potential contributor that it's happening. What's wrong with letting potential contributors know this information in the name of full disclosure?

I agree that it's wrong of forum regulars with money to not contribute. But I don't agree that it's right or smart to shame them. This form of shaming is unproductive, it doesn't advance anything worthwhile.

Consider reading the following:

 

[Afro_Vacancy]

She works for the federal government. She's a divorcee. I haven't asked her how old she is but I think she said she's 38 or 40 years old. She's no more than 40. Her son just reached 18 but she got married young. She's a good woman and moral women don't mind if a man says he needs her to help pay for things they're both going to share. The only women who want you to pay for everything are women who want to use you for money. The only women who get mad about being informed (politely) that she has to help him pay for stuff are women who want men to pay for everything. Do you really think I would allow a woman to use me for money? Not a chance.

I just bought Amtrak tickets myself. I'm meeting a woman myself, she is 29 and I'm headed to DC next week.

I saw the ad for the Amtrak credit card but I did not pursue it. I don't have a need for more credit cards, that's just more paperwork.

 

[nameless]

I agree that it's wrong of forum regulars with money to not contribute. But I don't agree that it's right or smart to shame them. This form of shaming is unproductive, it doesn't advance anything worthwhile.

Consider reading the following:
View attachment 55057

OK Afro_Vacancy I should have worded things differently when I WAS trying to get non-contributors to contribute but what you're saying is a lot different from what other posters are saying. They're attacking my character and sanity simply because I'm saying that regulars with money won't contribute. At least you admit that it really is happening. These other posters, from Hairblues to jo-achim to whoever else - are all acting like what I'm saying is false and totally crazy. But what I'm saying is happening, is happening.

I tried to get the non-contributors to donate but they made it clear that they're unwilling to donate. I accept that. But there's still the issue that potential contributors deserve to be informed that other posters are trying to ride their backs. I swear this is my only issue now. I no longer care if the non-contributors chip-in or not. It doesn't matter to me at all. I accept that they will not contribute. The only issue I have now is that I want the right to inform potential contributors what you and I both know to be true - that some regulars who can afford to contribute won't contribute because they want other people (contributors) to pay more money to make up the difference that the non-contributors won't chip-in.

 

[DoctorHouse]

Hi Nameless, how are you doing today? How is your day going?

 

[nameless]

I just bought Amtrak tickets myself. I'm meeting a woman myself, she is 29 and I'm headed to DC next week.

I saw the ad for the Amtrak credit card but I did not pursue it. I don't have a need for more credit cards, that's just more paperwork.

I have both AMTRAK credit cards. You get 20,000 rewards points for one of the cards but the annual fee is like $79 per year and the other card has no annual fee and it gets you 12,000 points. You can get 32,000 points if you get both cards. 32,000 points is almost enough to take you from Washington state to New York City in a sleeper car (including meals and showers). All the way across the country in a sleeper car for $79. And you can get rid of the card that costs $79 per year the day before the year expires and keep all the points.

I pay all of my bills from the billpay option in my checking account so it's easy to manage the paperwork. I don't worry about envelopes or stamps or any of that stuff.