zlacker

[parent] [thread] 5 comments
1. crazyg+(OP)[view] [source] 2026-02-03 21:49:25
No they're not? They very specifically address it.

Why do you keep insisting the author is denying something when the author clearly acknowledges every single thing you're complaining about?

replies(1): >>waffle+jy2
◧
2. waffle+jy2[view] [source] 2026-02-04 16:12:36
>>crazyg+(OP)
Denying the importance of...
replies(1): >>crazyg+Rz2
◧◩
3. crazyg+Rz2[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-04 16:19:07
>>waffle+jy2
Which they're not...
replies(1): >>waffle+cj3
◧◩◪
4. waffle+cj3[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-04 19:34:31
>>crazyg+Rz2
by coming to the conclusion they did, they are
replies(1): >>crazyg+h56
◧◩◪◨
5. crazyg+h56[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-05 16:08:59
>>waffle+cj3
So not denying. You just disagree is all.

So please don't mischaracterize articles in the future simply because you disagree with their conclusions. That's misrepresentation, and essentially straight-up lying.

replies(1): >>waffle+aB7
◧◩◪◨⬒
6. waffle+aB7[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-05 23:36:55
>>crazyg+h56
I deny your understanding of my use of the word deny :D
[go to top]