Emoterman
New Fish
The most ridiculous part of the whole thing is thinking that UW has boosters that care that much about football.
Clearly you've never been to Butler Cabin.
Last edited:
The most ridiculous part of the whole thing is thinking that UW has boosters that care that much about football.
why do you idiots repeatedly try and run this guy when he provides real value here
of course his financial claims were full of shit, who cares, as are 99.99% of any insecure weirdo who feels emotionally compelled to brag about money on an anonymous backwater dead football team website
fuck off
I have to admit, I'm kind of confused by this whole thread right now. To me, it reads like this:
@jhfstyle24: "Sonics claims x. But x can't[/i] be true, because if it were true, [long explanation of exactly how it could have happened] would have had to have happened."
Everyone else: "Ooooooooh, damn! You got him!"
@jhfstyle24: "And the timing would be such that you'd have had to start trading mega-donations for program access almost immediately after getting rich. And nobody has EVER[/i] done something stupid and pointless with their money immediately after becoming suddenly wealthy!..."
Everyone else: "Hello Pulitzer! This is hard-hitting shit!"
To summarize, I'm struggling to understand how all of this gotcha research did anything but provide a roadmap for how @sonics1993 could actually be telling the truth about his wealth and donations. This is the internet, so odds are still that it's bullshit, but how did anything in this thread help prove that?
@jhfstyle24 ' theory is inductive. He just saying it smells fishy.
Anonymous rando on the internet claims to be worth $8 million from Bitcoin and makes $500K donations to a college football program, and we need a research thesis to deduce it's unlikely? I guess what I'm getting at is my belief that Sonics is full of shit actually decreased[/i] after reading that research. It sounded impossible to me until I read that.


I have to admit, I'm kind of confused by this whole thread right now. To me, it reads like this:
@jhfstyle24: "Sonics claims x. But x can't[/i] be true, because if it were true, [long explanation of exactly how it could have happened] would have had to have happened."
Everyone else: "Ooooooooh, damn! You got him!"
@jhfstyle24: "And the timing would be such that you'd have had to start trading mega-donations for program access almost immediately after getting rich. And nobody has EVER[/i] done something stupid and pointless with their money immediately after becoming suddenly wealthy!..."
Everyone else: "Hello Pulitzer! This is hard-hitting shit!"
To summarize, I'm struggling to understand how all of this gotcha research did anything but provide a roadmap for how @sonics1993 could actually be telling the truth about his wealth and donations. This is the internet, so odds are still that it's bullshit, but how did anything in this thread help prove that?
@jhfstyle24 ' theory is inductive. He just saying it smells fishy.
Anonymous rando on the internet claims to be worth $8 million from Bitcoin and makes $500K donations to a college football program, and we need a research thesis to deduce it's unlikely? I guess what I'm getting at is my belief that Sonics is full of shit actually decreased[/i] after reading that research. It sounded impossible to me until I read that.
I have to admit, I'm kind of confused by this whole thread right now. To me, it reads like this:
@jhfstyle24: "Sonics claims x. But x can't[/i] be true, because if it were true, [long explanation of exactly how it could have happened] would have had to have happened."
Everyone else: "Ooooooooh, damn! You got him!"
@jhfstyle24: "And the timing would be such that you'd have had to start trading mega-donations for program access almost immediately after getting rich. And nobody has EVER[/i] done something stupid and pointless with their money immediately after becoming suddenly wealthy!..."
Everyone else: "Hello Pulitzer! This is hard-hitting shit!"
To summarize, I'm struggling to understand how all of this gotcha research did anything but provide a roadmap for how @sonics1993 could actually be telling the truth about his wealth and donations. This is the internet, so odds are still that it's bullshit, but how did anything in this thread help prove that?
@jhfstyle24 ' theory is inductive. He just saying it smells fishy.
Anonymous rando on the internet claims to be worth $8 million from Bitcoin and makes $500K donations to a college football program, and we need a research thesis to deduce it's unlikely? I guess what I'm getting at is my belief that Sonics is full of shit actually decreased[/i] after reading that research. It sounded impossible to me until I read that.
View attachment 35647
View attachment 35648
@GaryMSumersDawg true?!??
I have to admit, I'm kind of confused by this whole thread right now. To me, it reads like this:
@jhfstyle24: "Sonics claims x. But x can't[/i] be true, because if it were true, [long explanation of exactly how it could have happened] would have had to have happened."
Everyone else: "Ooooooooh, damn! You got him!"
@jhfstyle24: "And the timing would be such that you'd have had to start trading mega-donations for program access almost immediately after getting rich. And nobody has EVER[/i] done something stupid and pointless with their money immediately after becoming suddenly wealthy!...[/b]"
Everyone else: "Hello Pulitzer! This is hard-hitting shit!"
To summarize, I'm struggling to understand how all of this gotcha research did anything but provide a roadmap for how @sonics1993 could actually be telling the truth about his wealth and donations. This is the internet, so odds are still that it's bullshit, but how did anything in this thread help prove that?
I have to admit, I'm kind of confused by this whole thread right now. To me, it reads like this:
@jhfstyle24: "Sonics claims x. But x can't[/i] be true, because if it were true, [long explanation of exactly how it could have happened] would have had to have happened."
Everyone else: "Ooooooooh, damn! You got him!"
@jhfstyle24: "And the timing would be such that you'd have had to start trading mega-donations for program access almost immediately after getting rich. And nobody has EVER[/i] done something stupid and pointless with their money immediately after becoming suddenly wealthy!...[/b]"
Everyone else: "Hello Pulitzer! This is hard-hitting shit!"
To summarize, I'm struggling to understand how all of this gotcha research did anything but provide a roadmap for how @sonics1993 could actually be telling the truth about his wealth and donations. This is the internet, so odds are still that it's bullshit, but how did anything in this thread help prove that?
First of all, didn't say that. Reading is hard.
The only thing that I said absolutely cannot be true is that he got rich in early 2017, because that doesn't match the timeline he provided. I simply laid out the rest of the roadmap and the two possible scenarios - either Sonics' unlikely timeline did in fact occur as stated, or he is in fact full of shit.
I did not say that his entire story cannot be true, merely that it was rather suspicious due to the fact that his stuff about his trades didn't match up.
It's not impossible that he did the trades to absolute perfection and sold at the peak, it's just pretty unlikely.
It's not unlikely that a newly rich 24 year old would donate a big chunk to their alma mater.
It's not impossible that in a 5 month window he went from UW nobody to UW megadonor who regularly consulted the staff about recruiting tidbits.
The point was that yes, it could have happened, but the timeline he himself laid out was pretty fishy. That was all I said.
I think you're taking my 5 minutes of internet research unnecessarily personally.
I prefer to just accept that we live in a world where our football program is being funded by a 27 year old bitcoin drug lord
I have to admit, I'm kind of confused by this whole thread right now. To me, it reads like this:
@jhfstyle24: "Sonics claims x. But x can't[/i] be true, because if it were true, [long explanation of exactly how it could have happened] would have had to have happened."
Everyone else: "Ooooooooh, damn! You got him!"
@jhfstyle24: "And the timing would be such that you'd have had to start trading mega-donations for program access almost immediately after getting rich. And nobody has EVER[/i] done something stupid and pointless with their money immediately after becoming suddenly wealthy!..."
Everyone else: "Hello Pulitzer! This is hard-hitting shit!"
To summarize, I'm struggling to understand how all of this gotcha research did anything but provide a roadmap for how @sonics1993 could actually be telling the truth about his wealth and donations. This is the internet, so odds are still that it's bullshit, but how did anything in this thread help prove that?
@jhfstyle24 ' theory is inductive. He just saying it smells fishy.
Anonymous rando on the internet claims to be worth $8 million from Bitcoin and makes $500K donations to a college football program, and we need a research thesis to deduce it's unlikely? I guess what I'm getting at is my belief that Sonics is full of shit actually decreased[/i] after reading that research. It sounded impossible to me until I read that.
View attachment 35647
View attachment 35648
@GaryMSumersDawg true?!??

I think you're taking my 5 minutes of internet research unnecessarily personally.
So the first list totals over $17 million and the 2nd list tops $67 million. Why can't we buy out Gregory or Boner? Or pay top dollar for an OC?
why do you idiots repeatedly try and run this guy when he provides real value here
of course his financial claims were full of shit, who cares, as are 99.99% of any insecure weirdo who feels emotionally compelled to brag about money on an anonymous backwater dead football team website
fuck off