Originally posted by @dj2beckerHow was it "bait"? It was a question about a gap between what he had said in a post and what he was doing. It was responding to what he said about you and himself. I don't see how it was "bait".
The post I was responding to when I used the word 'bait'.
Originally posted by @dj2beckerIt's not "bait" and his answer to my question would be interesting.
Would you like him to continue responding to your bait?
I'd also be interested in a reply to my question about his claim there is a dearth of "substantive debate" on this forum.
If he'd spread his 350-400 posts over rather of the other current still active threads on this forum, he would probably have stirred up a great deal of "substantive debate".
Instead, he appears to have aimed close to 100% of his posts at just three posters he accuses of being trolls and who, he complains, aren't providing him with "substantive debate". It kind of does not add up,
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by @fmfAs I said you are welcome to disagree since you probably can't be too objective about yourself.
It's not "bait" and his answer to my question would be interesting.
I'd also be interested in a reply to my question about his claim there is a dearth of "substantive debate" on this forum.
If he'd spread his 350-400 posts over rather of the other current still active threads on this forum, he would probably have stirred up a great deal of "substantiv ...[text shortened]... d who, he complains, aren't providing him with "substantive debate". It kind of does not add up,
Originally posted by @dj2beckerDo you agree with the substance of my query to Romans1009 regarding what he claims is a dearth of "substantive debate" on this forum and my suggestion to him as to how he could remedy it?.
As I said you are welcome to disagree since you probably can't be too objective about yourself.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by @fmfSure. But I also understand his frustration when people try to discredit him with dishonesty claims that they cannot prove.
Do you agree with the substance of my query to Romans1009 regarding what he claims is a dearth of "substantive debate" on this forum and my suggestion to him as to how he could remedy it?.
Originally posted by @romans1009When you arrived on this thread, hit the ground running, and posted maybe 100+ times, didn't you steadfastly refuse to read any of the first 30+ pages of it?
Well if you go back to the posts before the thread got sidetracked with bickering and false accusations that I’m another poster, I think you’ll find I addressed that question.