Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

Ana Sayfaya Dön

While reading Sykkuno's girlfriend's statement, Twitch Streamer Denims criticises YouTube Creator and V-tuber Mujin for running with a humiliating aspect of Sykkuno's relationship that he stated in a call. While also running with the allegations without getting permission. She also points out the framing of Mals ' Google document,...

155,426 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce •via X (Twitter)

0 Yorum

Yorum bulunmuyor

Orijinal gönderinin yorumları burada görünecek

Benzer Videolar

Twitch Streamer Denims briefly went over her recent reply to the motion on Judgement for the pleadings that was filed yesterday (5/8/26) in her lawsuit with Ethan Klein of H3H3 Productions. In the filing, Denims covers a quote of hers that is being used in the lawsuit by Ethan's attorney, specifically stating Denims is acting as a market replacement for the nuke, thus committing copyright infringement: " if you want to enjoy it (Ethan's content nuke on Hasan), you know, come and enjoy the watch party somewhere else." Denims states: " The full quote is if you want to enjoy it, come, you know, come and enjoy the watch party somewhere else, in reference to not spamming it in Hasan chat. Instead of watching it somewhere that isn't spamming it in Hasan's chat because Hasan is not going to watch it. Like, the levels of dishonesty are crazy. And the fact that people still just take everything Ethan says at face value is kind of embarrassing. At that point just desperately want to believe that this guy wouldn't lie to you. and so you are just going double triple quadruple down." Wasn't Hasan already stating that he wasn't going to watch the nuke prior to it releasing? If that's the case, what's the point of spamming in his chat if he was already stating that, and this provided context wouldn't justify the legal argument that Ethan's lawyer is giving, stating that Denims (and others) were acting as a market replacement for the nuke?

Leigha Sapienti

53,781 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

So the discourse around this Dave Ramsey clip is so mixed up that I’ve just decided to upload the whole thing. In the full context of the call, the caller makes it perfectly obvious that: 1. She has been with this man, whom she is now living with, for six years. 2. She is a nurse and can make her own money. 3. She has been out of school for two years, and in that time she has paid off $70,000 of the debt. In the course of the call, Dave never suggests that this man should have to pay for that debt. Indeed, he actively suggests that she leave him, which guarantees he will not pay for the debt. Dave also all but says that, because of her career choice, the caller will be able to pay for the debt on her own, even if she has to take extra hours. All Dave is saying—and this should have been obvious from the original clip—is that the two are not aligned on money and debt at all. It is also clear that Dave thinks the man is stringing her along, which he is. So they simply should not be married at all, because this is a fundamental failure in the relationship. I myself would add that, at this late stage in the relationship, if you do not trust a woman financially, you should simply not be with that woman. And that is perfectly fine. But what you do not do is drag her along for six years when she obviously wants to get married, and then put another two or three years of financial hoops in front of her so that maybe you will propose. It is a waste of everybody’s time.

CTrefugees

135,314 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce