Could end the thread here since you're now trying to argue against the specific wording of the rule
Your definition was literally claiming that doing nothing counts as promotion because you twisted the words in it. You keep telling me to prove the opposite to things that you haven't actually proven at all
Well I have to say no a lot because you keep making assumptions about me that are wrong
The only promotion of discussion comes from a tiny minority of posts, not the thread itself. You're getting muddled
That's clearly not all I've done - or clear at least to anyone who reads my posts properly - you just post "no you haven't". That's not proof, that's denying the facts.
There's no need for one since your analysis of the definition was flawed to begin with - you're claiming that doing nothing is "support"
Great news but I didn't suggest that all threads progress with discussions since that's totally beside the point
Denial is something you're obviously well versed in, since you're still pretending that how a thread might possibly evolve has some bearing on its starting point. I do have an argument, and your attempt at a counter is a retrospective look at a tiny number of posts which has nothing to do with any of my claims
Yawn. You gave me a definition which you twisted beyond its meaning
Wow. You actually cannot read. I was being obtuse when I've said it before but this really proves it. WELL??? as an example was not as a thread title, but an opening post; it would still have the title. It is essentially what these threads mostly do in that they pose a question in the title and then do not expand upon them in any way.
A thesaurus almost never gives words that mean 100% the same thing as you ought to know, and you skewed the dictionary definition to include something that these threads don't even do. There is no promotion or support of discussion in the opening post of them
Yes I did. I showed how it did not refer to the point I was discussing and you got stroppy.
That is not all I've done and you'd know that if you read my posts. Seriously, the amount of straw men you're shooting down the F in HxF might as well stand for Farm. You're the one denying my involvement
Psssssst changing the question after being proved wrong doesn't actually mean I've done something wrong, just thought you'd like to know
Obvious to anyone who can put more than one post together without confusing themselves then. I'm not denying my argument at all, I'm explaining to you that one or the other needs to be changed - because the rule does not cover them currently, despite your insistence that you can't possibly be wrong at all no matter how many times it's shown to you. I haven't said that the definition is wrong, only your application. I wonder if there's a single post in this thread where you haven't made up something I haven't said?
Yes and along with it I quoted you attempting to claim that a single reply to someone (a reaction) is a discussion right away. You seem to believe that a discussion requires no involvement from a further party.
Then all threads are valid and the rule needs changing, fab. You agree.
I'm (again) not denying the definition, only your application of it. The threads do not support discussion because they are asking purely for a flat answer
Because that isn't all that he's stated :S he also spoke about changes to the rule and how it currently doesn't work in relation to the threads in question
All I'm denying is things that you're pretending I've said which I haven't, which ironically you've just done again
Wow guess I must be promoting slavery and genocide. Come on, you know that opposites are not the only options, right?
Mostly just Ryan claiming I've said things that I haven't said tbh