They just reading our questions and complains except replying..dunno what they understand our questions and complains..
I literally know how you feel. After
this fiasco, I can say that even at the supervisory level of staff at Warp Portal, comprehension is not one of their strong points.
...
European, is not, an ETHNICITY nor is it a RACE. It's a nationality. For the love of god, STOP using Racist incorrectly and stop applying it where it doesn't fit!.Jesus christ.
...
Being called a European means you exhibit the characteristics of a native of Europe or are in fact a native of Europe. Being an actual European means that you are of any one of the nations of Europe. It is not a nationality per se. It is the same as calling myself Asian. I do not come from a nation called Asia. I do, however, come from a nation in Asia. Therefore, I, and anyone else, can call me Asian. Fact checks before going into legal talk helps a lot. You can be cited for false and misleading information as well.
You are correct that there is no racism in exercise here. However, there is an attitude exhibited by Warp Portal at the moment towards certain members of this community simply because they belong to a certain group. That in itself is prejudice.
In that note, I agree that many allegations and / or insinuations made here are prejudiced against Warp Portal with no basis on solid tangible evidence. I encourage everyone to consider, however, these points:
1. Warp Portal's service performance has left members of this community with the impression that the welfare of customers are not in the company's priorities. It can be said that this is a sentiment of members of this community for quite some time. This brings about many possible reservations as a consequence, such as leaving the community with the notion that the company is up to no good. An entity can stand for good and righteousness in the world, but if it looks evil, talks evil, and sounds evil, then should anyone who accuses the entity as evil be blamed?
2. The allegations leveled at Warp Portal have no evidence to base on because the evidence required to prove or disprove such allegations would have come from Warp Portal staff's lips (or in this case, fingers). They are the only members in this community you would readily believe were they to speak about what, when, where, and how they've heard, seen, learned, and done something. Transparency is another one of Warp Portal's weak points -- at the very least, this is true in the ROSE community. I have read better exchanges in some of the other communities here. But keep in mind that transparency here is not only in the manner of how frequent the back-and-forth dynamics of conversations occur, but in the manner they speak to us. Consider that the reason why we have no idea when Warp Portal was aware of the new law, its intricacies and the consequences as a result is because the public announcement that first spoke of this was worded in a way to avoid divulging such information or even allusions to the same. Now take for example, the announcements that occur after an incident. They would be worded in a manner such as, "It has come to our attention..." or "We have received reports...", both of which not only allude to the timeliness of the information to follow -- that is, they have recently come under enough notice to warrant the announcement -- but also, given no other context, a sense of how serious and urgent the matter is.
3. A statement being of one's own opinion does not disqualify the quality that the statement is correct, especially if there is a possibility the evidence exists and is not shared. Alternatively, given time, an opinion may be realised as fact. A man's opinion, true enough, is not fact. That doesn't disqualify the possibility that it may be. Considering the points offered earlier, in all likelihood some of the opinions -- and even some of the allegations leveled at Warp Portal -- have a 50% chance of actually being correct and a 50% chance of being wrong. The outcome may come to fruition if the appropriate information to decide the matter in contention was shared. But regardless of the availability of evidence and because the one making judgements equally does not have enough evidence as another one offering an opinion, the first cannot say that the second is wrong in the same manner that the first cannot say that the second is right.