>If you, Aigh, can make a valid statement, I will agree

So you are claiming, quite clearly, that my statements are invalid. Interesting that you feel qualified to ack as judge over a debate you start. But considering that you started it only with insults, it is not entirely surprising.

>But, hey, if you, Aigh, feel the need to discuss this, why not?

Well, lets not confuse things here. You are the one wanting to make personal attacks, and I am left defending myself. Don't try to suggest I want this exchange.

>if you (anyone) don't have a point (and therefor think that you (anyone) are right), then why make one at all? If its not intended as humor, I can see no use in arguing when you, Aigh, think someone else has a superior way. Does that make any sense, or did it sound like bable?

It's the same stuff, you telling people how to do it, and insisting there is only the One Way. Yes, I understand it, but no, I don't agree with it.

In any case, you are claiming that it is wrong of me to choose what I protest. This kind of authoritarian language doesn't have a place at PerlMonks. Does it? I don't think telling people what to think should have a place anywhere that is claiming to be a "community." You shouldn't start a thread with this kind of motivation, it is dangerous to the viability of the community.

As for claiming to know my motivations, why I would change some posts and not others, is too ridiculous to go into.

Paris Sinclair    |    4a75737420416e6f74686572
pariss@efn.org    |    205065726c204861636b6572
http://sinclairinternetwork.com