> Your "reasoning" is like
Oh deary, deary me, FF22 and you were complaining (incorrectly) about *me* using fallacious arguments!
Shall we try Ad Hominem Tu Quoque? Or maybe Burden of Proof? Or there's always the good old False Analogy...
(You could, of course, also look up the definition of what "theft" actually is, but that's by-the-by...)
> the reason why I'm saying what I'm saying is completely irrelevant
Is it? Ok, FF22, you tell us *why* this *ONE* particular issue is so important to you.
As I said, out of (what was, at the time) just 86 posts since 2013, a large proportion of them have been about the blocking of adverts, so why this and nothing else? Why are you putting so much time into attacking Alexander Hanff? I, for one, would like to know.
> if what I'm saying is not factual and makes no sense, you could obviously still rather easily point that out, and expose the logical and factual flaws in my comments. But you didn't and don't do that.
No, I haven't and I'm not going to because others are doing that and comprehensively and repeatedly demolishing your arguments, but you are simply not willing to accept even the possibility that you could be wrong.
So, again, I ask *WHY* this one particular issue is such a big deal for you.
Now are you going to answer that, or are you just going to try to move the goalposts again and attack me for pointing out your fallacies instead?