[krainboltgreene]

No one is answering you because it's obvious to even the most intermediate observer where this work is coming from.

The only reason anyone would give KF the benefit of the doubt is because they willfully are ignoring the activity going on in KF.

[betwixthewires]

What about to people like me, who have only ever heard of kiwi farms in passing, who don't really know anything substantial about any of this stuff and want to know more? Is it obvious to us? I'd like to see what everyone's talking about when they talk about this site, and if they're right, without actually going there. Can you help me out with that?

[krainboltgreene]

You want me to google news articles for you?

[betwixthewires]

No, just show me that what you're saying is true.

[krainboltgreene]

You've had a day and a half to google it.

[betwixthewires]

I did google it, still nothing but more people telling me to google it.

[Cyberdog]

So the lack of evidence of wrongdoing is evidence of wrongdoing. Got it. That will certainly fly in court.

[krainboltgreene]

What court? What lack of evidence? Are you even on this earth right now?

[Cyberdog]

> What court?

A hypothetical court. I was just using it as an example of how the argument wouldn't hold muster in situations where it would really need to.

> What lack of evidence?

You posted this:

> No one is answering you because it's obvious to even the most intermediate observer where this work is coming from.

Again, "well, it's just obvious, dude" is not evidence. It's similar to a "god of the gaps" argument. If there's evidence Kiwi Farms did it, then Kiwi Farms did it, and if there's not evidence that Kiwi Farms did it, then Kiwi Farms still did it. That makes no sense.

[krainboltgreene]

> I was just using it as an example of how the argument wouldn't hold muster in situations where it would really need to.

I love when non-lawyers think they have any idea on what holds muster in the court of law.

[philippejara]

So there isn't then?