> Oh, I'm aware, as you seem more than willing to throw out anachronistic arguments (like using the Chinese Firewall as an excuse before it was in place), and then immediately try to change the subject when it's clear you're out of your depth.
You were correct, and you seem to know much more about history than I do. All I can do is learn, but again, we aren't here to talk about the timeline of the HK protests. You may have a valid point bringing it up with Apple's pull on the world, but that's not the whole picture. That's all I was trying to say.
> I'm not sure how you can know it's emotional when you've admitted to not having read it
I read a lot of it but after the third time seeing you mention a detail I'd already told you wasn't relevant, yeah, I stopped trying so hard.
Hopefully you trust me when I say I've read everything else you've written, not sure how you think I could keep replying to your quotes otherwise.
> Some would argue that blanket describing an entire post that someone invested time in writing as "emotional" to the point of not needing to be read is a fairly bold and "sanctimonious" value-judgement
Not the same thing as what you were trying to do at all. You tried to pigeonhole me into some class of person in order to undercut my arguments. I merely pointed out that you were letting your emotions run away with your arguments... indeed, you did talk by my point, multiple times.