|
|
|
|
|
by Someone1234
2970 days ago
|
|
Your original post was interesting because it raised legitimate questions about their operation. They answered those questions. This follow up comes across as though you've drawn a conclusion and are now arguing towards that predetermined conclusion while ignoring the additional information provided. Plus your argument has kind of devolved from talking about specific concerns to throwing criticisms at the wall to see what sticks. You don't seem to be arguing in good faith. |
|