>>7038947>>7039208>There's also the fact that you attacked a minor technicality of his statement while ignoring the main point, however ill-communicated it was: that nobody positively regards mass replies of that nature. Which I suppose I should amend for accuracy's sake: nobody *outside of the desktop share thread* positively regards mass replies.The main point of your statement was that my post was not cared about and that it was "shitting up the thread". I refuted the first part of that point but ignored the second part because to claim that my post it "shitting up the thread" without providing valid reasoning for why this conclusion was made is just conjecture and I find it unworthy of a response. I don't care if nobody positively regards mass replies, therefore I will continue to provide them as I see fit.
>Is that better?No, you made your original point more retarded and confused.
