Your comment completely misses the point of this discussion. Let me remind you that my original stance (and I emphasize this) was that Zip must have had valid reasons for his behavior. You can't build an audience on promises alone - there needs to be an actual project concept. Zip succeeded in implementing his ideas: he created a game and continued developing it. People subscribed and supported him. Then Zip changed his approach to project development. This is exactly where I argued that people don't just change their minds spontaneously - there must be reasons behind it, potentially difficult life circumstances.
I've been personally accused of moralizing and defending Zip's interests, when in reality the opposite has become clear. This isn't about defending Zip - it's about calling out the morality police. Let me break it down:
- Attempts to "enlighten" individuals about an alleged "Zip scam" and influence his patrons
- Unsubstantiated allegations of fraud against Zip, relying exclusively on circumstantial evidence
- The infantilization of patrons based solely on lexical and grammatical analysis
- Manifestations of evident discomfort regarding Zip's financial success
- Irrelevant commentary containing incoherent content, invariably infused with moralistic overtones
This exposition should suffice. However, given the presence of certain "cultivated individuals" within this forum, I anticipate further responses. The necessity of reiterating fundamental concepts for those with reductive interpretations of reality becomes increasingly tedious. Interested parties may examine the complete dialogue thread for comprehensive context