I'm considering regardless of the angle he takes, his general purpose stays the same... to make Fornits look bad.
In the latest case I believe he is capitalizing on the actions of "well-proxied" and spurring the argument of ethics concerning the posting of personal information. In the intention of making it seem like Fornits is responsible for the actions of this anonymous individual and due to the lack of moderation should somehow be held legally responsible.
We all know that a case of this sort would have no merit, and furthermore no target, however it is the point that he is using this situation to ethically discredit Fornits, and ultimately the cause of fighting for the rights of institutionalized youth as a whole.
This is of course just my guess...
Yes. I recognized Who was spurring arguments over “ethics” due to the repetitiveness and “abstraction” of its posts.
He is also the writer of the posts about the girl getting bullied, whose "parent" is interested in institutionalizing her to help her self-esteem, “since she resists talk therapy.”
I would say, his aim is to distract from important issues, more than “making us look bad.”
It is so methodological and so genuinely disinterested in communicating it is hard to resist the idea that it is a “hired gun.”
People who know how to recognize it should simply mark its posts as Who and the rest of fornits should IGNORE it.
