I see, afraid or unable to answer.... redirecting in seeming bad faith.

I'll go ahead and mark you down in the "cowardly kiwifool" column - that seems to be most of you. Strange.

Anyway, if you want to engage my questions I'll consider engaging in yours. (I use the same policy with you lot that I use with drug dealers, car salespeople and other unsavory hucksters - show me the goods then I'll give you what you're asking for if it's a reasonable exchange.)

Uh huh. Let's play:

> Help me out - your favorite hate site is getting trash talked and doxxed. Please fill out this questionnaire.

Is TMZ a hate site? Is anything a hate site just because people assert it without proof? Do you believe everything you are told by journalists?

> Upset that people can spread rumors you think are false?

Is it really spreading rumors when they're using your own posts?

> Upset that there are real world consequences to the stuff that's being said about you, independent of the truth of it?

So are you suggesting that nobody should ever say anything at all because someone might take it the wrong way? That sure sounds like giving in the to the Heckler's Veto. Perhaps you mean that there should be some forum for adjudicating disputes of fact about a person's reputation? In that case there is in fact just such a forum: It's called a court of law. If KF posters have said anything defamatory then feel free to try to sue them. Go ahead.

> Angry that you are labeled as nazi sympathizer because you hang out on a site that has a lot of nazis?

OBJECTION! Asserts facts not in evidence. Just because you assert a place has X in it does not mean that it has X in it. I mean, if we're going by that standard, I can point out that anyone who hangs out on Discord must be a furry and a pedophile because of... oh wait.

> Embarassed that you subscribe to a belief summarized as "why are you upset? free speech!", and now you find yourself not championing the free speech of those attacking you?

It is not "free speech" to engage in tortious interference. Do you understand the difference?

> Aware of the delicious irony of your position?

There is no irony. Only Zuul.

This is why I demand to see the goods up front. If you don't want to answer my questions, that's cool, but there's no reason to answer yours then.

I'm sure you are aware of this, but I never said anything about legality, or even talked about it. Looks like you're going with the classic scumbag fallback of "its not illegal" before I even suggested you did anything wrong. Kinda sad that your default position isn't that you're in the right, just that you aren't breaking the law.

I'll leave you to your day with this: it might be worth your time to consider activities that benefit the world rather than just plodding from one technically legal trollfarm to the next - most people find the rewards of being useful quite nice. Cheers and good luck!

> This is why I demand to see the goods up front.

...because you want to steer the conversation to predetermined conclusions and are incensed that other people won't play along?

The era of the proletariat blindly believing whatever the petit bourgeoisie tell them is dead and gone, and attempts to silence the proletariat when petit bourgeoisie are caught doing unethical things doubly so. Information wants to be free.

> ...because you want to steer the conversation to predetermined conclusions and are incensed that other people won't play along?

Lol no silly. Because I want to have answers to my questions and an actual conversation, not sit around and play mental patty cake with someone incapable of participating in actual conversion. When your only response is to ask a bunch of nonsense questions that aren't in any way related to what I'm asking or saying, you aren't conversing, it's just some childish game of avoidance.

Dismissing my answers does not make them any less answers. Also, I'm not the one refusing to have an actual conversation. That's you. You said you wouldn't answer my questions until I answered yours... so I did, and now here we are with you continuing to avoid those very uncomfortable questions.

Maybe you should just admit that you just hate KF and don't care if they're silenced or not. That at least would be honest.

Ahahaha - you didn't answer my questions. For most of you asked a bunch of non-sequitur questions. For one of them you decided to pretend you were in a court and then tossed in some legal sounding gish gallop. I get it, you don't know the difference between answers and babble. That's ok, not everyone can be competent at basic human interaction, but it also means you don't know how to participate in a conversation. If you want me to try and make sense of your drivel in good faith, you too have to participate in good faith.

> the classic scumbag fallback of "its not illegal"

What's so "scumbag" in trying to rely on the law and law enforcement for getting rid of bad and harmful things? I'm a normal citizen, I'm perfectly happy to leave the judgement to the courts. Am I a scumbag because of this?