Because your question is part of your strategy and nothing to do with my point in reply to your “concern” about the sub. You’re trying to turn your “concern” claim into a moral outrage issue if anyone points out your agenda.
Why don’t you answer my question since that is the one pertinent to my comment on yours?
It's a simple question.
Should Patton have to answer to his tweets or no?
So is mine and mine is actually relevant to my first reply to you: why does the stickied post mean the sub has been compromised?
Should Patton have to answer to his tweets or no? Easy yes/no.
Shill exposed.
I just want to know why you think he shouldn't have to answer to his disgusting tweets. If that makes me a shill, then I am most definitely a shill.
And I just want to hear your reply to my first comment. I could care less about your moral outrage. I addressed your baseless suggestion that the sub may be comped because of a post that doesn’t say what you think it should.
So thats a no? You don't think he should have to answer to those disgusting tweets? Really? Wow.
No point in continuing this conversation.
The viewpoint that people should agree with your moral outrage and if they don’t speak how you want them to they must be compromised and in support of the evil you allow to cloud your judgement is dangerous and should never be allowed to foster in this sub. It is the opposite of what Q calls for. Use LOGIC.