so like
if it were merely assumptions i wouldn't engage at all, there's a reason i am questioning your post
you've glossed over all that to nitpick my own reaction, handwaving the fact i am asking your intent first and foremost. you know the answer since it was this with an added preface with both alternatives because i didn't want to simply assume what the intent was:
rest of the post is a way to address the *if scenario*. if that isn't the case, disregard
it's very clear the reason i asked your intent was if it's only controversy for the sake of controversy.
i don't see the point in playing the devil's advocate for the sake of it when community involvement and opinions are placed sporadically by people merely inspecting and observing.
coming in here saying it's a tad melodramatic, while true, paints a clearly disinterested impression, does it not?
what was i supposed to address and assume?
if it were merely assumptions i wouldn't engage at all, there's a reason i am questioning your post
you've glossed over all that to nitpick my own reaction, handwaving the fact i am asking your intent first and foremost. you know the answer since it was this with an added preface with both alternatives because i didn't want to simply assume what the intent was:
if it's in bad faith, i would discourage it, but not actually prohibit. do what you wish, just don't see where it'd lead
however if you simply want to bounce ideas off of me with a genuine intent to discuss your opposing belief, sure
rest of the post is a way to address the *if scenario*. if that isn't the case, disregard
it's very clear the reason i asked your intent was if it's only controversy for the sake of controversy.
i don't see the point in playing the devil's advocate for the sake of it when community involvement and opinions are placed sporadically by people merely inspecting and observing.
coming in here saying it's a tad melodramatic, while true, paints a clearly disinterested impression, does it not?
what was i supposed to address and assume?