| > Why are you are reading emotion into this? I'm reading that you're upset that the conversation has moved on because you're complaining that someone made a comment "out of context" and I disagree. > if you can’t protect your data, then perhaps you don’t have the right to be in business I fully agree. > They didn’t agree. They added a decontextualized statement a bit like the one they were following I read it as an agreement. I see you don't. You're clearly think it's an out-of-context opinion and I disagree about that. > And then added a political statement that was a complete non-sequitur to the conversation. It is, for sure, a political statement. But it's not a non-sequitur. Businesses that are uninsurable are arguably rent-seeking to stay in business. > Why do you feel the need to defend these statements? Different people have some very different opinions. Because I can. Because I'm bored. Because I want to. Because it's not against any rule. Because I think you're wrong. Take your pick. Ultimately, your question here is rather out-of-context, unimportant, and doesn't add anything to the conversation. Why do you feel the need to attack these statements? Why do you feel it's necessary to claim that an opinion is made out of context and doesn't contribute to the conversation? Why do you continue a long reply chain denying someone who disagrees with you? That's effectively what you've asked me. |
> I'm reading that you're upset that the conversation has moved on because you're complaining that someone made a comment "out of context" and I disagree.
That’s you reading something in that isn’t there. There is no complaint.
>> They didn’t agree. They added a decontextualized statement a bit like the one they were following
> I read it as an agreement. I see you don't. You're clearly think it's an out-of-context opinion and I disagree about that.
Ok, but nothing supports this. It’s not a statement of agreement. You are welcome to read that into it if you like though.
> Businesses that are uninsurable are arguably rent-seeking to stay in business.
No. That clearly doesn’t follow.
>> Why do you feel the need to defend these statements? Different people have some very different opinions.
> Because I can. Because I'm bored. Because I want to. Because it's not against any rule. Because I think you're wrong. Take your pick.
> Why do you feel the need to attack these statements?
There is no attack. I think you are imagining that there is one. That is why I asked why you felt the need to defend the statements.
> Why do you feel it's necessary to claim that an opinion is made out of context and doesn't contribute to the conversation? Why do you continue a long reply chain denying someone who disagrees with you? That's effectively what you've asked me.
Because I was curious about why you were defending the statements, a question you haven’t answered.