diafel wrote:
mckyj57 wrote:
No one is trying to stifle discussion on a particular topic. The point is -- don't make Sound Choice the topic when it is not.
Well, obviously you are, simply because you obviously don't like the opposing view! That's clear to anyone with eyes in their heads.
How on earth can you even say that?
SC is part and parcel of the topic at hand. They are INCLUDED in the paperwork of the lawsuit in question, and now you're saying we can't discuss that portion of it because you feel some need to keep everything completely "on topic" (which it
IS)? Please define "on topic" for me, because I'm clearly having trouble reconciling my definition with yours. I kind of looked at these forums as more like a conversation between several people, which will naturally wander and meander to side topics and perhaps wander back on the original topic again, or perhaps not.
"Find a knothole, and drive a truck through it". Just because a company relates in some small way to a suit at hand, it doesn't mean that bringing the topic of the legitimacy of all of their particular doings to the fore is appropriate.
Quote:
You don't hear people conversing in real life and then someone suddenly jumping up and shouting, "Hey! You're off topic. Stay on topic or I won't talk anymore.".
This isn't real life. But they do do that, they just leave or stop talking. And if you think it is right that you can make people leave by bringing up the same topic over and over again, then I think you are wrong.
Quote:
Do you REALLY want us to start a new topic for every single aside?
Seriously???
No, I want you to exercise some restraint and not do a kneejerk repetition of the same argument in every thread. Yes, I know you only have a hammer. Yes, I know you see every problem as a nail. But spare us the sound of the pounding -- it isn't accomplishing anything.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
