That's the thing, Diamond Man; at least in this article, you're assuming we're fully supporting Further Confusion's decision, when only PapaBear (who is less associated with Flayrah than you, a former contributor) has said anything. We only reported on it (and by "we", I of course mean Sonious), and I think if you actually paid attention to our responses to FC's decision (or just us in general), I think you'd see that actually we have a variety of responses to it, because we aren't one person, we're a group of people with varying opinions and responses.
Many of us do have opinions more closely aligned to your own than you probably believe; if we're a bit short with you in this article, it's mostly because we're a bit sick of the month's worth of comments you'd deluged us with on the previous article. And in that case, if we're a bit short with you, it's a combination of the fact that you have a history here, your tone was combative from the beginning, and even if we agreed on the basic idea (law enforcement, especially in America, can sometimes be a bit harsh, erring on the "punitive" rather than "rehabilitave" side), that particular article was not the hill to die on in that particular battle. You could have picked a better spot, is what I'm saying.
Anyway, nice comment on the Smash Bros. article; if you're going to stick around, MORE LIKE THAT, please.
That's the thing, Diamond Man; at least in this article, you're assuming we're fully supporting Further Confusion's decision, when only PapaBear (who is less associated with Flayrah than you, a former contributor) has said anything. We only reported on it (and by "we", I of course mean Sonious), and I think if you actually paid attention to our responses to FC's decision (or just us in general), I think you'd see that actually we have a variety of responses to it, because we aren't one person, we're a group of people with varying opinions and responses.
Many of us do have opinions more closely aligned to your own than you probably believe; if we're a bit short with you in this article, it's mostly because we're a bit sick of the month's worth of comments you'd deluged us with on the previous article. And in that case, if we're a bit short with you, it's a combination of the fact that you have a history here, your tone was combative from the beginning, and even if we agreed on the basic idea (law enforcement, especially in America, can sometimes be a bit harsh, erring on the "punitive" rather than "rehabilitave" side), that particular article was not the hill to die on in that particular battle. You could have picked a better spot, is what I'm saying.
Anyway, nice comment on the Smash Bros. article; if you're going to stick around, MORE LIKE THAT, please.