I’ve already replied to you regarding this exact stance you have. Readers: check my (or their) comment history for what I have previously replied. Tl;dr they’re linking two completely unrelated situations together to create a narrative that his past opinions are why he resigned. Opinions which have since changed, and the thing that made him resign was where he was being pedantic, while STILL DENOUNCING what had happened to Epstein’s victims (a part which is often conveniently cut).
You don’t need to post it again. You’d do better just responding to the first one and not posting it again making it look as it hasn’t been responded to.
I repeated my stance to reiterate my point, which you seemingly ignored since you repeated your points (which I addressed!) again.
I’m not entirely sure why you repeated yours even after it was addressed, without so much as an acknowledgement that it had been addressed, it’s pointless at best and bad faith at worst. I can only assume the point of that was to make it look like I had not already addressed those points and that they were completely valid.
I’ve already replied to you regarding this exact stance you have. Readers: check my (or their) comment history for what I have previously replied. Tl;dr they’re linking two completely unrelated situations together to create a narrative that his past opinions are why he resigned. Opinions which have since changed, and the thing that made him resign was where he was being pedantic, while STILL DENOUNCING what had happened to Epstein’s victims (a part which is often conveniently cut).
You don’t need to post it again. You’d do better just responding to the first one and not posting it again making it look as it hasn’t been responded to.
You repeated your stance, what’s wrong with me doing the same?
I repeated my stance to reiterate my point, which you seemingly ignored since you repeated your points (which I addressed!) again.
I’m not entirely sure why you repeated yours even after it was addressed, without so much as an acknowledgement that it had been addressed, it’s pointless at best and bad faith at worst. I can only assume the point of that was to make it look like I had not already addressed those points and that they were completely valid.