Quote:
Originally Posted by jumpoff
not sure how this works in canada, but usually when you make claims that someone´s product is flawed/manipulated with fraudulent intent, you´re the one who has to prove they are true. the more your statement can potentially hurt the other party´s business, the more important it is to not make it without actual evidence.
there are countries where doing what you do can even lead to criminal charges. even if thats probably not gonna happen to you, its a strong indication that such behaviour is viewed as unacceptable by many people. so that question of yours really makes you look like an *******.
I have to admit I never find this anti-riggedologist argument to be particularly effective. I do not think any of the sites care one bit what fringe players who could not win think when it is all standard paranoid conspiracy nonsense. They probably find it amusing.
Also, public figures are pretty much public domain in a way in terms of what is said about them, which is part of the price of being a public figure, and most accept that to be part of the territory as long as it remains relatively harmless (which pretty much all posts here have followed - even the weird mafia/entropy stuff).
Nobody ever expects a riggedologist to prove anything, because they never have actual proof. The fun is in the banter.