Well apparently you didn't look very hard because these were literally screenshot from his twitter account directly before uploading this. And his net worth is 30 million, I'd imagine he wouldn't be concerned over half a million.
Those things can be edited, and I was giving him the benefit of my doubt. He may be worth $30 million, but a half million cash is nothing to sneeze at. However, I'm glad he did. Unfortunately, tweets like that which aren't TOTALLY and apparently facetious, are dangerous. I've got to think he was fucking around. I don't say this because I'm some "fan" of 50 cent. I couldn't care less about "him".
What do you mean you gave him the benefit of the doubt? You said you couldn't find them. Do you mean to say that "giving them the benefit of the doubt" in the context of trying to find evidence means to not try to find evidence? I mean the screenshots explicitly display the date in which it was posted. All you had to do was go to his twitter account and scroll to that date. But "giving him the benefit of the doubt" means you don't have to do that and then you can technically say "well I mean I didn't see it so it's probably not there."
First of all.. I don't use twitter. Its a fucking waste of my time. And going to his page and trying to find a quote from 6 days ago is ridiculous. As to the actual quote, if YOU had read my comment, you might understand that I am saying " presuming he said that, I think he was being totally sarcastic". If he wasn't, it's very dangerous and he just earned my total lack of respect. But I can't tell if he's being serious. It doesn't seem that he is.
You don't need to have a twitter account to look it up. And if its waste of your time, then why try to pass it off as time that you actually spent but saying "I can't find a copy of that, by the way" which insinuates that 1. it isn't there and is therefore photoshopped, or 2. you actually tried to and couldn't find it. And if you did try to find it, you would have found it, and if somehow you did try to find it and didn't find it, then this is clearly above your pay grade. And this segment of your response was the first response, of which did not contain your remark about "if he did." I'm addressing your first response and how you attempted to deceive people into thinking you genuinely tried to find it. And did you seriously just say "trying to find something from 6 days ago is ridiculous" as if it's some remarkable feat? The posts have dates on them. Scroll down until you're past 6 days ago, then scroll to until you're past 6 days ago, then look at the posts that happened 6 days ago. This isn't rocket scientist. Are you a journalist or something? 😂
You are pretty fucking rude, you know that. Don't accuse me of stuff you have no evidence of. I actually did try and look for it. My computer isn't brand new, and scrolling through 6 days of tweets from a guy who doesn't shut up takes a long time. What isn't rocket science is what I'll repeat for you ONCE AGAIN !! You're all hung up on proving that he said it, and my point is... soooo? I THINK he's being facetious. What's your point? Are you outraged at his remark? Do you think he meant it? Instead you're all bent out of fucking shape with my not locating it because you take it to mean I'm calling you a fraud. Get over yourself and address the point of the tweet. Is it real? Is it serious? Or not?
You know that topics can arise from other topics, right? I haven't been talking about the content of the tweet, I've been talking about you and your deception. But if you insist on derailing the conversation to save your own hide, I think he genuinely likes trump, despite that fact he's teasing him. Trump is a tease-able guy, there's no denying it. I like Trump and I tease him. I don't think the "I think I like him" part was satire, and I think that if you scroll through his tweets within the last week, you'll feel the same way.
And I wouldn't be being rude if you didn't sassily imply my post was invalid. If you know your computer is bad (which it shouldn't be bad for Twitter) and you know you didn't go to the date where the post allegedly is, then your implication that it isn't there is entirely unwarranted. Don't try to deceive, and you won't be met with incivility. I highly doubt you think that attempting to discredit someone despite not actually trying to check for yourself is a warranted action.
And do you see the irony of "don't accuse me of stuff you have no evidence of?" You had no evidence that post wasn't there because you didn't check, and then you imply that is wasn't there.
Ok listen... other than a great big warm Fuck You, which is what you deserve, let me explain the difference between "infer" and "imply". Implication are what the author is suggesting, inferences are what the READER take the words to mean. They are not often the same. I "implied" that his Tweet could be edited, or whatever that photograph was could be edited. You "inferred" that I was saying "YOU edited the thing and it was discredit YOU". That's your mistake, not mine. You posted a picture on a page. I have no idea where it comes from, it could be an edited creation for all I know since I DON'T TWEET !! So like I said, try and get over yourself, ok? Your honor on GAG has not sullied. So from what I can "infer", you think his whole thing is satirical, and facetious. Lovely. It all serves to further reinforce my wise decision not to be on Twitter. Have a nice day.
I don't think you think I edited it, I think you thought it was edited. Most people don't know how to photoshop, it's not reasonable for you to assume I can. If I had mentioned you thinking I specifically edited it, I was likely using it as an example to express the notion that you think it was edited by someone (in that case, I was the example person). So what you just admitted, it exactly what I've been saying this whole time. You implied it was photoshopped, in a discrediting way, not a curious way. You wanted this post's credibility to come under question when you weren't even able to try and check for yourself. Do you think it would be warranted for me to say "I can't find a post where you're said anything nice to someone, by the way" when I haven't even tried to go to your profile? Seriously, I want a straight and honest answer to that question. Do you think what I just implied is warranted?
You want to talk credible statements - " Most people don't know how to photo shop," - Really? You've done a survey? It's also irrelevant. Until I realized 50 cent was "probably being facetious", I naturally questioned the veracity of the PICTURE in the post, not the honor of the poster, which you are still obsessively fixated on over 5 simple words, "those things can be edited". It seemed that someone who disliked 50 cent might be setting him up. I've had enough of this for one day, Mr. Anonymous. I'm done. Once again, have a nice day.
Did you seriously just question whether most people don't know how to photoshop? Do you mean to say you think most people do know how to photoshop?
I didn't say that. I said that you have NO basis to make that statement because you have facts, you're guessing. "Most people" in what age group? I can easily guess that "most people in the age group that pay any attention to 50 cent DO INDEED know how to photo shop", while most people on the planet do not! It's a statement without credibility that serves as a total straw man, and it's completely irrelevant to the point. It's no different than posting "why don't (most) GUYS (or GIRLS) want to commit" ?
So you can easily guess that most people who pay any attention to 50 cent easily do know how to photoshop, but I can't? What's your basis? You have no facts, you're guessing, just like I was. So why don't you need a basis or a survey, but I do? What makes you valid and me invalid? And for the record, I can confidently guess that you're tremendously off. I'd be willing to bet few people of any age group know how to photoshop. Also, you said you're done twice now, why are you not done? I welcome the debate but you don't seem to take your word very seriously.
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions