|
|
|
|
|
by CyberDildonics
1917 days ago
|
|
No one is being worked up or aggressive, but I suppose this is the 'focus on how it was said' part. To recap you started with a bold claim and instead of confronting or explaining the large holes you repeated the same thing more forcefully, gish galloped onto irrelevant issues, directly contradicted yourself with your own example, made an even greater claim about more allocations being faster, then moved on to calling me "aggressive". Why not just confront the actual topic and the actual points I made? Why work so hard to avoid them? |
|