I'm going to recap, because I'm starting to get lost in your web of obliviousness and I want to make sure everyone is on the same page:
1) DN tilted off 10K Euros, and tried to spin it like a big moral stand, in the form of a pedantic rant.
2) I, noticing this reality, and noticing this form was similar to the way Druff rants on about his little pedantic ethical stands, made a hilarious post.
3) You made a comment objecting to my mentioning the name of someone who used to be poker-famous but now isn't, citing that this isn't 2005.
4) I, finding this to be a hilarious misread, and also ironic given that we are at this very minute posting on a forum that's even more dead than his, made fun of you.
5) You continued on a one-man mission to prove that Daniel is more famous than Todd Whittles.
This is what's happening, right? Am I misreading something or is this not completely surreal?
1) you mentioned Dan Druff
2) I attempted to make a joke about it being 2005 because Dan Druff isn't relevant at all in 2013
3) you make some sort of comment about Dan Druff's website doing better than here.
4) Im trying to argue that it doesn't matter who's website does better, DN is famous, Dan Druff is a nobody.
5) you keep making comments about this forum being dead, which doesn't have anything to do with my comment about it being 2005 or the relevancy of Dan Druff. And now we are going back and forth not understanding each other
That is how I'm seeing things. Guess I'm crazy