Demand Studios (Leaf Group Ltd.) defeats Demand Studios Sucks

Since my last series of rebuttals against some posters on Demand Studios Sucks, I regularly checked their website. Not long after the last series of posts that I had made in rebuttal to these individuals, the website started to slow down both with blog updates and with forum posts. Eventually, both the blog and the forums came to a complete stop. First it was days, then weeks, then months, and then years passing since the last posts.

During its final active months, the frequency of postings on Demand Studios Sucks dwindled, then dropped. One topic that sparked that site's community's interest was Demand Studios' (now Leaf Group) fate. Specifically, who would win, Demand Studios, or Demand Studios Sucks. Demand Studios eventually went through a change, to include a name change to Leaf Group as well as having stocks.

"Patrick," Demand Studios Sucks' owner, declared victory based on the name change alone. However, this was a phony victory. "Patrick," as well as the last remaining members on the site, became excited when it appeared that the stock, for what formally was Demand Studios, performed relatively poorly. However, Leaf Group continued to perform its mission years after Demand Studios Sucks "went silent." Their stock continued to go up and down depending on market conditions. 

Recently, while looking for the Demand Studios Sucks website, nothing showed up. Well, not what usually shows up when you click on the link leading to Demand Studios Sucks. The link leading to Demand Studios Sucks is still active, but what was once Demand Studios Sucks is not what you would see.

Instead, as of the time of this posting, if AI generated triple "X" mature adult content appeals to you, then Demand Studios Sucks is the website for you.

During my short participation on the website, and then during my subsequent back and forth with the members of Demand Studios Sucks, I noticed a common trait. They had the tendency to be emotional, vindictive, combative, etc. It appeared to be a website where individuals could complain about actual and alleged unfairness, and even mistreatment at the hands of Demand Studios. There was also a sense of "eat the young" mentality." 

Any kind of active solution to actually deal with Demand Studios, a constructive way to deal with them, was shut down or dismissed. In many instances, not even considered. "Patrick" even attempted to corner this niche by creating forums for the different content farms. The name of the forums was based on the name of the content farm site and the word "sucks." 

Could this website have continued to run, and be active, beyond its actual run? It is possible. The reality changed when algorithms, impacting content farm websites, changed. The gravy train stopped providing gravy. We had a bunch of writers facing a new reality to where their main or a significant source of income was threatened and eventually ended. 

This was a perfect opportunity to form a community of writers, with similar experiences, to share their knowledge and to help other writers in the community. "Patrick" could have steered the website, and the mission, towards one where writers can give and receive help and advice. This effort could potentially have led to a source of income. A community of writers could have been built, grown, and sustained based on their experiences with Demand Studios and with other similar sites. 

Multiple possibilities existed that "Patrick" could've steered the site, and community, towards accomplishing. However, creating a site for the purposes of venting and complaining guaranteed a short life. The reality is that the vast majority of people will move on from the subject of their complaints. They normally pursue other activities and "forget" about the topic of their complaint. Leaf Group (formally Demand Studios) made this adjustment and change. 

I also had my suspicions, still do, regarding who "Patrick" and some of the posters were. The site owner apparently wanted to project an image of a man. However, the tone, the demeanor, etc., indicated someone who was a woman. Towards the end of activity on the site, some of the commenters came across as "Patrick's" sock puppets. 

I would not be surprised if the final Demand Studios Sucks interactions on that site were between the puppeteer and the sock puppets... A "one person show" after everybody else had moved on. I also would not be surprised if the majority of those who wrote for Demand Studios, who subsequently participated in Demand Studios Sucks, had returned to brick-and-mortar operations at least until the pandemic.

Demand Studios Sucks' disappearance came with it the disappearance of the threads related to my arguments with certain members of that site. What still exists are my rebuttals to those on that site who foolishly chose to continue to argue with me. The smart thing for them to do would have been not to try to argue with me in the first place. Had that been the case, The disappearance of the Demand Studios Sucks website would have also resulted in the disappearance of the rebuttals to them that I generated and posted to this site. 

So, the reality is that both Demand Studios/Leaf Group and I defeated Demand Studios Sucks, and we won our respective engagements with a straight cut victory. In Leaf Group's case, they won against Demand Studios Sucks without even firing a shot in a contest they did not realize they were engaged in. 

I posted about Demand Studios Sucks commenters on this blog from 2011 to 2013. In one of the posts, I predicted that Demand Studios Sucks would end its run. The above is a partial explanation behind why I did not think that the Demand Studios Sucks community would last. 

Jeanne Jondreau points to George Santos lies, says nothing about lies from Biden et al.

Jeanne Jondreau: [Redacted] Have you seen the crooked politicians in Congress? 

I have been aware of crooked politicians for decades. They exist on both sides of the political aisle, despite the mainstream media's insistence on reporting corruption from the Republican side while ignoring corruption from the Democrat side.

This corruption blew wide open in the aftermath of the 2020 Presidential Election. The Democratic Party, and their Republican in Name Only (RINO) allies showed their true colors, that they were truly corrupt, and that they were using their offices for personal enrichment. The Democrats have proven that they are all about power and that they care little about the regular people.

Jeanne Jondreau: The Founding Fathers may have wanted those with moral character, but that is not who is running the country. 

Because we have people like you, who base their voting decisions on emotions and opinion and not on the fact, what else did you expect to have? When people like you, and other Democrats/leftists, fall hook, line, and sinker, for nonsense and propaganda, and vote against the best interests of the country, what else did you expect to happen? How many times will people on your side of the argument keep voting for Democrat until they realize that the Democrats create the conditions that they complain about?

Jeanne Jondreau: George Santos has lied about everything he ever said, everyone knows it, he knows it, and, yet, he is still there. Unbelievable.

Yet, you say nothing about the corruption of the Democrats. George Santos is an amateur when compared to Joseph Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Charles Schumer, the squad, and others. I have had to endure decades of watching the news where the media gives a pass to Democrat corruption but turn on anthill into a mountain or completely make something up regarding a Republican.

Your argument indicates that what you consider as "people with moral character" depends on your opinions of that individual and how consistent they are with the socialist/progressive agenda.

Mark Hutchins tells veteran with experience gathering tactical intelligence that he is wrong... About military intelligence

Another coward that responded then moved to block instead of being man enough to take the rebuttal. 

Mark Hutchins: Ok, I'm sorry you are feeling offended that your rank did not give you the privy info you so gallantly thought was Topps, 

Again, you demonstrate lack of knowledge of how military intelligence works. You do realize that it's the enlisted personnel that gather the intelligence, do you? They gather it, analyze it, then provide a bigger picture for the officers to review. 

Also, intelligence information is on a need-to-know basis, not on what rank you hold. Meaning, that "naval intelligence officer" that you reference is providing you opinion that is not based on military intelligence data. If he were providing such, he would be in hot water as you and others do not have a need to know of what he is talking about. 

I do not envy that naval intelligence officer's position, if he is what he claims to be; he would have been a desk jockey who spent a lot of time pouring through open-sourced data to put his power point briefings together... We called folks like him "power point rangers." 

Was he even in the Navy, I would not be surprised if this was a stolen valor case. Judging by the video, I would not be surprised if this individual is a Russian national.

Mark Hutchins: you have overestimated your knowledge by far, I understand your ego has been bruised but it's reality

Don't mistake my telling it like it is as "overestimating my knowledge." My knowledge is dead accurate, and based on firsthand experience. It's painfully obvious to me that you have absolutely no clue about what you are talking about. Nope, ego is not working on my end, but on yours. My actions were not ego based, but on the fact that I take sadistic pleasure in proving people like you wrong, and then watching your reactions. 

You refused to answer my question about whether you served or not. Your responses make it painfully obvious that you didn't serve... Yet that didn't stop you from telling someone with firsthand experience gathering information in the military that he was "way off" and "ill informed."

James Shepherd (Facebook) demonstrates cowardice

James Shepherd: You claim to be educated 

Not a claim, but a statement of fact. It's a fact that I'm a doctoral candidate on the research phase of my program. A claim is something that is not proven and is subject to being tested for validity. 

James Shepherd: and then post a 100% bullshit meme. 

Yet, you did nothing to prove the meme "wrong", nothing. A meme is not BS simply because you claim it is. You have to PROVE it to be such which, by looking at your emotion driven rant, you have not done so. Thus, the argument presented in my meme still stands.

You also failed to post this specific response to my response containing the meme. You did this deliberately, assuming that I was not going to counter your argument, something that I did on that thread just as I've done here. 

James Shepherd: GTFOH. 

Retired Soldier, war veteran here. I have every right to exercise my first amendment rights, on that thread, here or elsewhere, rights I was willing to come back in a flag draped coffin for.  

The fact that you'd tell me to "get out of here," together with the rest of your comment, indicates someone who has anger issues, ego issues, and control issues. Your response is typical of that of someone who didn't get his way and is "pulling a tantrum" in response. 

James Shepherd: You're just another partisan moron [SELF-PROJECTION]

First, you failed to prove anything that I posted, either via the comment or via the meme, "wrong." All you've done was blow hot air out while demonstrating lack of restraint and lack of discipline on your part. 

Second, I don't comment, or argue, on a topic unless two conditions are simultaneously met:

1. I have extensive knowledge on the topic gained from firsthand experience and/or extensive study/research...

2. Those who disagree with me, or would disagree with me, have little to no knowledge of the debate topic. 

Both of these were met. You proved it with your own actions, choosing to issue insults and show anger, ego, and control issues rather than address the points that I advanced. You also dodged replying to me directly where I could respond to you on that thread. 

I've been debating against Democrats for 20 years, and this has been a part of my strategy. 

James Shepherd: that is merely repeating BS right wing talking points.. [SELF-PROJECTION] 

Speak for yourself. Again, I've been debating against Democrats, online, for 20 years. Your reaction here is nothing new, I've lost count of how many times I've had your very argument spewed in my direction throughout those two decades. 

It's like you guys are passing the same script around... Must be aged, yellowish, wrinkled, by now. You and others are like those non player characters in a video game who keep repeating the same script, no matter where these characters show up. 

Don't dismiss a fact based, reasoned, logical argument as "BS right wing talking points," especially when you're going to do so repeating the same leftist script I've come across over the past 20 years, and especially if you're going to fail to prove your claims beyond emotionally making them. 

James Shepherd: Stop trying to make everything a partisan issue 

On a post involving politics, related to an upcoming election, you should expect people to take one side of the argument or the other. 

James Shepherd: and you'll actually LEARN something.

Sorry, for me to learn something from someone, they actually have to know what they are talking about or doing. Again, you failed to prove your claims, other than ranting them. Also, do you honest to God expect me to do anything that you demand given how you responded to me? Guaranteed, the way you talked to me does nothing but further entrench me in my arguments and habits while making me more hostile to yours. Demonstrating tact goes a long way with me, learn it.  

Jeanne Jondreau misunderstands the concept of the Bible being written for the times

In response to a post, that people should let Scripture change them rather than attempt to change Scripture to meet the times, Jeanne Jondreau commented about the Bible being written for the times. Specifically, that it was written for ancient times, for an ancient audience, with the implication that relevant portions of the Bible are not applicable today. Jondreau also argued that the Bible should not be literally interpreted. 

Jeanne Jondreau was right where she did not intend to be, and she was wrong where she thought that she was right. As used in her argument, Jondreau implied that many parts of the Bible were intended for an ancient audience and not necessarily for modern ones. Additionally, by not taking the Bible literally, a pathway is open to liberally interpret what Scripture says. This assumption also opens the way to dismiss certain parts of the Bible. 

However, Jeanne Jondreau gets it wrong given that the Bible is jampacked with metaphors, allegories, symbols, etc. to get a point across. The underlying meanings are still applicable today. 

Many of the metaphors and storylines appealed to the audiences at that time. For example, the use of fire. Many Christians today believe that fire is associated with Satan. However, reading in context of the entire Bible, the fire metaphor leverages the use of fire in industry and everyday living during that time. Fire was a valuable tool. 

Tourists going through the ruins of Pompeii would see evidence of the ancients use of fire. Fire was used for cooking. Work smiths created a final product utilizing furnace fires as a part of the production process to arrive at a finished product. A common theme involving mention of fire in Scripture leverages most commonly understood concepts regarding the utility of fire in ancient times. 

In the Old Testament, people "doing what was right in their own eyes" as opposed to what God defined as right, where metaphorically described as "burning." Their lives were much harder than what they needed to be. To improve their lives, they had to abandon their interpretation of what was right in favor of doing what God defined as right. 

One underlying theme in this description is captured in a common Internet saying, "Life is tough, but it is tougher when you are stupid." This theme utilizes the image of a work smith using a furnace to solidify "perfection." God is described as the work smith, and humanity is described as the product. For example, the exile is described as "a furnace" aimed at purging impurities from the Judeans just as a metalsmith purged impurity from liquefied metal. 

This is just but one example of how the descriptions in the Bible address themes that are relevant today. For example, a person who genuinely cares about others in the workplace, who gives credit where credit is due, who does not steal credit from others, who helps others achieve their goals, is more likely to have a better time at work to include endorsements for promotion, pay raises, and retention. However, a person who takes credit for someone else's work, who blames people for things that they did not do, who throws people under the bus to make himself/herself look better, is a person who contributes to the erosion of worker morale in an organization. People have turnover intention, or fire back with counter incivility, and do things that work against efficient operations and against the organization's ability to meet its objectives. 

Scripture addresses human nature that is still relevant today. Understanding the Bible, from the perspective of someone who lived during that time period, makes this evident.

Jeanne Jondreau, pulling the Christian card while failing to play the part

There's nothing Christian about judging people without the benefit of the facts. The fact that you posted these memes, and your statements, rendering judgment without knowing what you are talking about, contradicts Scripture... There's a big difference between following Jesus of Nazareth and your actions. learn the difference instead of showing a meme telling people to learn the difference. It's painfully obvious to me that you have not read the entirety of the Holy Bible. It's also painfully obvious that you like to post Christian related comments and images on Facebook while failing to act the part. 

The thread starter deleted the thread, sparing you from the balance of the blistering fact check scrutiny that you were about to be subjected to. It's a good thing that I saved this for posting on my blog. 

 Jeanne Jondreau: During the Civil War, the Democrats were slave owners. Yes, that was sad to find out. 

This is the only thing that you said that was correct.

Jeanne Jondreau: But, now, it has all switched. 

That's a myth, partly based on the argument on how the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed by Democrat controlled Congress and signed into law by a Democrat President.

Support for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was just over 80% among Republicans, and just under 70% among Democrats. Democrat Senators, 21 of them, set a record filibuster at the time attempting to kill the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Republican support for the bill contributed to breaking the deadlock, ending the filibuster, and passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to the White House to be signed into law. 

The myth is that racist Democrats transferred to the Republican Party to protest the Democrat vote. That makes as much sense as moving from Florida to Alaska to protest Florida winters. Out of the 21 Senators, only one transferred to the Republican Party, one senator is not going to change the entire party. The other 20 remained with the Democrats. 

Jeanne Jondreau: I can't remember what year I read that happening. 

You won't remember, because it never happened.

Jeanne Jondreau: Tell me, 

I did, see above. 

Jeanne Jondreau: you know so much. 

I've been a history buff for over four decades, and have argued this and other topics against Democrats for 20 years. 

Jeanne Jondreau: So here we are. The Republicans have picked up where the Democrats left off in the South. 

This is a spectacularly incorrect statement. You do realize that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would not have been passed had it not been for Republicans, do you? Again, support from the Republican side was over 80%, it was 21 Democrat Senators that attempted to kill the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It was not until the 1990s until the South became solidly and consistently Republican. 

Jeanne Jondreau: So I am liberal Dem used to be a Repub during the Civil War. Chew on that for awhile.

First, you're making that statement based on your erroneous understanding of US History. Both Democrats and Republicans in the 19th Century would've seen your argument as an abomination. In the 20th Century, the Democratic Party shifted towards the extreme left, socialism and communism. The Republicans, on the other hand, did not adopt the policies of the Democratic Party... That's a BS myth. 

Second, the policies of the Democratic Party, both before and after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, go counter to the conservative principles of the Republican Party. Racism goes against conservative principles. It speaks volumes when numerous Blacks have walked into Republican rallies, and found out that the idea that the Republicans are "racist" is just a myth. 

If you want to find out who the Democrats truly are, listen to what they say about the Republicans.