No, you’re responding to what your want to argue against instead of what is actually being said. I’m not going to continue repeating myself to someone who has no intention of listening.
How do you implement a “different process” without doing away with the one you have? Are you talking about making some minor adjustments now…or coming up with something else entirely?
You immediately contradict yourself here. “Can’t change anything without throwing away everything. Unless you’re talking about making changes that is.”
Your Nobel prize awaits.
“You’re not allowed to point out a flawed system unless you have a perfect solution! ‘better’ is not good enough if it’s not perfect! To do otherwise must mean you’re advocating for anarchy!”
Refute what, man? The only thing you keep repeating, is that I missed your point, without clarifying how? So, I keep asking you for more information, and you don’t provide any.
No, you’re responding to what your want to argue against instead of what is actually being said. I’m not going to continue repeating myself to someone who has no intention of listening.
You immediately contradict yourself here. “Can’t change anything without throwing away everything. Unless you’re talking about making changes that is.”
“You’re not allowed to point out a flawed system unless you have a perfect solution! ‘better’ is not good enough if it’s not perfect! To do otherwise must mean you’re advocating for anarchy!”
Man, I’m not the one contradicting myself here. You are just talking in circles now…and still saying nothing.
I’ve said plenty and you haven’t refuted any of it. I’m not repeating myself for you again.
Refute what, man? The only thing you keep repeating, is that I missed your point, without clarifying how? So, I keep asking you for more information, and you don’t provide any.
I have repeated my point plenty, you made it clear you don’t listen. Reread my posts and try again.