>>7038947<Except that it's not your post that nobody cares about, it's the replies contained therein. His responding to your post does not a priori rule out not caring about the content of the post; he's responding to the fact that you made a post of that nature, not to its content.
Irrelevant. Specifying which aspect of the post is being cared about is not necessary or useful when determining whether or not the post is cared about. Again you make an invalid assumption: that the content of the post is equal to the post itself, but then you contradict this by drawing a distinction between the post's content and its mere existence in order to further your argument. The fact is that regardless of whether or not you regard the content of my post positively or at all, you care about the post I made for whatever reason - in this case its because you don't like that it is "shitting up the thread".
If someone were to plant a bomb in your house and your friend were to ask you "do you care about the bomb?" you would no doubt say yes. This doesn't necessarily mean you care about the contents of the bomb, but that it's existence threatens the integrity of your house. You care about my post because its existence threatens the integrity of the thread as far as you're concerned. Another contradiction is that you say you don't care about the post's contents, but then you bitch about the fact that the post contains mass replies. We will again reference the fact that "care" can simply be "any consideration", therefore you do in fact care not only about the post, but its contents as well AND in this case you only care about the post BECAUSE of its contents. You just care in a negative sense, like with the bomb in your house. You have failed at every turn to support your logic and reasoning in this matter.
[CONT.]
