LifeGivesYouLemmys

joined 1 year ago
[–] LifeGivesYouLemmys@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 months ago (5 children)

Lol 3 net upvotes.

You don't seem like you're laughing. You sound upset.

[–] LifeGivesYouLemmys@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 months ago (7 children)

So the Washington examiner is a right wing rag, so this is a shitty source. How's that? I discussed the article!

[–] LifeGivesYouLemmys@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 months ago (6 children)

That's a lot of delusional shit to make up, but I'll address the one thing relevant to... Reality.

I'm talking about this community. The modlog is very easy to use dude. And you can't erase it by rambling about weird shit.

https://lemmy.ml/modlog?page=1&actionType=ModBanFromCommunity&userId=12798565

[–] LifeGivesYouLemmys@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 months ago (9 children)

Gotta say it was pretty delicious when you got banned from your own sub 😂

[–] LifeGivesYouLemmys@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 months ago

Doesn't matter what trump says, OP prefers them to others.

[–] LifeGivesYouLemmys@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Probably just because you are bErZeRk

[–] LifeGivesYouLemmys@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Your only principle is "if I have to do something, I'll do it, I guess".

rofl

[–] LifeGivesYouLemmys@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 months ago (3 children)

I don’t have to explain anything to you

Again, no one said you had to. But you would, if there weren't something insidious behind this bizarre behavior.

[–] LifeGivesYouLemmys@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 months ago (5 children)

You apparently are pretty confused. "you have to" and "you would" are extremely different phrases, and I never once implied they were similar. Only that you wouldn't need to pretend "the articles are interesting" is your motivation, in a context which implicates you as sketch af, if you weren't sketch af.

You'd simply explain it and avoid thousands of replies telling you how horrible you are. I guess it's possible you're a masochist who likes being insulted, but I think the other explanation is much more likely ;)

[–] LifeGivesYouLemmys@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 months ago (17 children)

But the fact is that if there were a legit reason, you would.

[–] LifeGivesYouLemmys@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (19 children)

Of course. You would only explain why you post three times per hour

  • in favor of third party candidates
  • suddenly, starting 3 months before the election
  • increasing in frequency after the debate
  • despite the massive amount of critical comments you get

If the explanation would not get you permabanned.

[–] LifeGivesYouLemmys@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (21 children)

198 Posts

1.24K Comments

Joined 1 month

Source: https://lemmy.ml/u/UniversalMonk@lemmy.world

If it took only 10 seconds to post each time, and 20 seconds to make a comment, that means you have spent:

(198 * 10) + (1240 * 20) = 26780 seconds

Or, 7.44 hours, in one month. That's almost 5% the amount of time people spend working full time. Almost a full work day. And these are extremely generous estimates that assume you are very fast. I have no doubt you have spent minutes responding to some of the comments calling you out.

A more realistic set of numbers would be

(198 * 30) + (1240 * 45) = 61740 seconds

Or, 17.15 hours, in one month. That's almost 43% the amount of time people spend working full time. Over 2 full work days.

To calculate the number of times you submitted content per waking hour:

(198 + 1240) / (16 * 30) = 3

Or once every 20 minutes on average, assuming you sleep. Almost every single one promoting third party candidates. Totally and completely not sus, at all. Not even a little bit.

view more: ‹ prev next ›