So... what was LXXXVIII banned for, anyway?

submitted by Debra_L from self.AskSaidIt

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]JasonCarswell 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

Now you're avoiding socks valid questions (whom I rarely agree with).

Who are you, and why should you care, and why should we indulge you?

If you can't be open, at least be clear, concise, and compelling.

If you can't comply with more you're a timesuck distraction, regardless of the good points raised in this post.

[–]Debra_L[S] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

You're discrediting your own notions of argumentative validity, if you tie them to the person. Ad hominems are frowned upon for good reason. (Actually a bannable offense on SaidIt, BTW.)

[–]JasonCarswell 3 insightful - 4 fun3 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

I didn't tie anything. I pointed out I'm flexible enough to agree with socks. Dragging down conversations, as you're doing, is ban-worthy, not ad hominems (especially with M7 unreliable moderation). More importantly, again you avoided the questions.

You are a waste of time.