Due diligence says otherwise. Why is it I see that attack on Roger, but its never supported? I look and asked around but not ONCE in over 2 years of asking, can anyone produce support for the statement. Due diligence shows Roger integral for the growth.
There would be none of the growth, no self publishing, none of it without Roger. There is a ton of DD to support this.
So, if there is DD to support that statement attacking Roger, it has NEVER been shown.
Also, the 'spending money like candy.' That's 100% false bullshit as well with zero support. Just pure shit rhetoric.
$FUNN