Because what you consider "constructive" basically means "agree with Dyne's idea in the first place..."... and I don't.
I believe I've already covered this and explained why, in detail, going back some pages now. If you didn't read, or chose to ignore, those reasons... that's not my problem. I'm not going to continue repeating myself for someone who insists on remaining willfully ignorant and refuses to read or comprehend anything except what they want to hear/read.
That's a wonderful characterization of exactly what I'm not doing.
I'm disagreeing with your idea. I'm challenging you to provide better reasoned supporting arguments for it. I'm poking fun at how inconsistent you've been in pitching it throughout this thread. I'm calling you out on being lazy in your presentation of the idea, because it is.
I am not, however, stomping feet or throwing a tantrum.
Nice go at mischaracterizing and revising history though.



Reply With Quote


