[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Would it have been not "very interesting" if I had piled on at about post 317 or so with something like "yeah all spam sucks" or something similar before I posted 318?.."

No, but it would have been *not very interesting* if you had criticized the poster who ran away from any critique of his post, which is what this is all about. Instead, you have criticized us for having the audacity to call him a coward.

"If you will please recall my comments were not about spam in general, but your description of it as spam and the fun you were having trying to discredit his argument by noting he posted the same thing over and over."

Then you didn't understand the nature of my critique. I was showing that he had made the same statements not just here but at different forums, and had not had the guts to defend himself there either.

"I really found it funny that you were having this discussion with someone who posts the exact same thing on every single CREVO thread."

Who do you mean? And what should I disgree with in their posts?

[darbymcgill]

No, but it would have been *not very interesting* if you had criticized the poster who ran away from any critique of his post, which is what this is all about.

It's no wonder we're not getting it... We have differing concepts of what we're discussing... What "this is all about" to me is you trying to discredit a poster's argument by saying he's posted it many times before. Which in my opinion is not a valid critique. You've just stated that you found it cowardly that he ran away. I never noticed that in your posts ~ #307 - #317, obviously an error in my comprehension being the soliloquy was posted at #305...

I tell you what, I'll agree with you that running away and VI for non abuse are cowardly, if you'll agree with me that posting the same thing over and over is not a valid logically flaw in argument.