[quitit]

I'm not going to engage a reply when your responses are how you personally feel projected as facts. Particularly the comedy around the suggestion that a social network is a requirement (maybe you feel like you need one?)

Also I think you've missed the point as you've pasted in quite a bit of information that confirms or agrees with my views.

[troupo]

> I'm not going to engage a reply when your responses are how you personally feel projected as facts.

Isn't it the exact same that you did?

> Particularly the comedy around the suggestion that a social network is a requirement

I never said it was a requirement. You could try and actually read what I wrote instead of imagining what I wrote.

> Also I think you've missed the point as you've pasted in quite a bit of information that confirms or agrees with my views.

Again, you could try and read that information instead of imagining what this information is.

[quitit]

I make the distinction between what are my opinions. This is a feature of comprehension that you lack and it's why I don't engage in [your] bad faith arguments since it underlines that your objective is not to present facts or opinions for discussion but rather to convey that what you think and feel as factual information - when it is not and you've provided no evidence to suggest that it is.

I'm hope this makes it clear for you. Since I don't see any value in conversations where people can't stand behind their personal ideas.