And since we're talking wikis here, please https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith when people comment on what you've written.
No it doesn't. A person who says e.g., "If you have diabetes, you need to mindful of your insulin and blood sugar levels", is not assuming a given person has diabetes. That's not how conditional claims are read.
> [and it's] not true if they can find new unpaid volunteers
Wrong; even if they can (and have), what I stated still remains true.
> And since we're talking wikis here, please https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith when people comment on what you've written.
Wikipedia's "Assume Good Faith" guideline is exactly that—a Wikipedia guideline—and has no intrinsic connection to wikis.
Aside from that, the tendency for Wikipedians to admonish their opponent by citing WP:AGF specifically for the purpose of implicitly accusing the other side of (willfully or not) choosing not to observe/respect the rules of decorum—and thus themselves operating in contravention of the very guideline they're citing—is perverse but unfortunately entirely too common. Invoking the shibboleth is certainly one of Wikipedia's most baffling traditions.
Even so you've chosen to die on a strange hill. What you seem to be arguing for is conditional on how "money to to continue" is understood in this context. While I believe I understand your point: it's moot. A continuation has occurred. A continuation is occuring. If your assertions were correct that would not be possible.
> A continuation has occurred. A continuation is occuring. If your assertions were correct that would not be possible.
Again, wrong. I'm pretty well-acquainted with what I said. Go reply (antagonistically) to someone whose remarks actually contain the defects you so badly wish mine contained (to the point that you're willing to ignore what I've actually written and substitute whatever it is you're imagining me to have said in its place).
But it is a true statement!