Fangthane

Out of your whole spiel, this comment seems the most relevant and telling insomuch as it applies to what I perceive as one of the chiefest aspects of this whole situation - at least, regarding your respective points of contention. People raised concerns; Dan had seemingly addressed those concerns to their satisfaction. If some people have shrugged it off, that's their choice. Considering that he apparently did have non-profit status, perhaps people ultimately chose to look at it as a donation. If he's inherently wrong, even after having been able to make an argument that convinced people to forbear animosity for not receiving their DVDs, it just doesn't seem like there's any way that the guy can win with you. You seem to want to be more of an executioner than a messenger.

I really didn't want to have to muster the ambition to write another novella of a post. I'll try to be brief, but I simply don't feel that the picture you're painting is a particularly apt representation.

If we're going to bandy definitions that we feel are needful, I'd counter with:
You essentially accused Dan of theft. I don't see anything that would come close to making me agree with that. Some words probably shouldn't be so blithely tossed about. I'm thinking that you may have been going for:

If that's the case, I'm sincere when I say that we'd all appreciate whatever proof you have that supports the idea that there was any degree of willful trickeration involved in any aspect of the Alterna Rush debacle. Do you have something that undeniably proves fraudulent intent? At worst, you made the case that Dan sold something that he was ultimately unable to provide by the stated release date - or ever. There's no contention there. He's acknowledged that a certain amount of people definitely thought they'd paid for a product; as opposed to donating toward something that may have simply thought of as an admirable pursuit. He openly differentiates between the two ideas. I simply think that the "theft" aspect of your campaign has fallen flat on its face. I do, however, stand corrected in my mistaken belief that there was no definite timetable set for release.

Take all the time you need. I just hope you're able to provide something more substantial than screenshots of those whose initial concerns have been satisfactorily (by their own standards) addressed. If you really want to effectively attack someone's character, I think you're going to have to do much better than you have so far. If you're going to make a case for people lying about their FB interactions, show something that proves it beyond doubt. Otherwise, I'd vote to leave all that junk over on that worthless site that amounts to little more than one big, moronic popularity contest.

I doubt I'll chime back in. I don't really have any particular interest in this thread; I just felt that there were some points that sorely needed arguing. Mission accomplished. Our mutual propensity for long-windedness is bound to start pissing people off.
I'll give you that one. Everything that makes its way on the BOI stands to mean something to someone. Of course, the messenger's perceived intent may play heavily into how much weight readers choose to give any subjective messages.