>>106195378You just admonished me for looking to them for evidence, but you also won't support your position either. If all sources are invalid, why should I believe anything but my own theory? Your argument as I understand it is this: they look like they make money, which means they feel the need to appear this way publicly, which means they are desperate for money. This is completely unfalsifiable, but could be supported if you could point to actual signs of debt or low funds that contradict their image. You have declined to do this, so I must assume this view does not come directly from any evidence you observed.
I accept your concession. You are a gay and a liar.
