So Richard Heart literally warns people about a specific project that can be exploited, that project then gets exploited for 610million but somehow he is the bad guy in this situation?
Like I've said before you are literally cluessless about this subject.
I'm happy for you to prove me wrong
I’m not sure how you can say I’m clueless here to be honest. Let’s run through this again. I’ve made it a bit simpler this time.
You say: Richard Heart made money for charity therefore proving he’s not a scammer.
I say: That’s nonsense. Plenty of horrible people have made money for charity and indeed have used it as a smokescreen to be able to commit abhorrent acts(eg. Jimmy Saville)
You get all weirdly defensive and say: you clearly don’t know what you’re talking about and use a deplorable term.
I say: I mean, what I said is valid though and you shouldn’t use that language.
You say: you don’t know what you’re talking about (again)
Going round in circles here. Like having an argument with very basic robot.
I suggest you to study: ‘reading a book’ or ‘going outside’