Why should any entity be allowed unlimited donations?

As far as meaningfulness, this depends on the context. And the observer.



You mean, not useful to you? ...and?

In any case, in the text of mine you reference, the informational content of them tends to mimic that which they respond to. Assuming that's what you meant by "dead air."

Diego had traveled long and hard, and finally reached the border of his land, at the center of a wide green pasture. Carlos was waiting, and between them, sat a large pile of fresh droppings, left by one of their cows. They stood, facing each other, each on their own side. Carlos rolled his sleeves and cracked his knuckles.
"It has been a long time, amigo."
"Indeed it has," Diego responded, rolling up his own sleeves and flexing his shoulders.
Carlos seemed unimpressed, and continued. "I've been waiting for this a long time," he said, and pointed down at the pile.
"Now...you will eat the manure."
Diego laughed halfheartedly at this, and drew his dagger. "I don't think so, my friend. YOU will eat the manure."
Carlos grinned and shook his head. "YOU eat it," he said as he drew his sword.
Diego glared and drew his pistol. "You."
Carlos gritted his teeth and drew his pistol as well. "You."
They both cocked their weapons and aimed, and stood for quite a while.

Then they had lunch.



"You respond!"
"No, YOU respond!"
"I will, once you respond to my response!"
All of you need to stop throwing and eating shit and make a point. Even better - make it without referencing previous posts. Then we can continue.

*eats popcorn and waits*

This is a BS post Feral. I've made my position MORE than clear, REPEATEDLY.

It is lu61f3r that REFUSES to answer a SINGLE question put to him.

You need to read, with an objective mind this trolls posts.

He does NOT answer direct questions, he only reponds with questions... he is a troll and a coward.

Ah, I'll give you that one for the first half, but it is difficult to see your positions between wordplay and insults and responses to wordplay and insults. It happens, and I'm seeing on this board, it happens often.

I wouldn't say that. Before the semantics and name calling, Luc challenged to note a union as involved as a corporation. I saw that challenge as met, and Luc, you could have simply conceded the point before continuing; you chose not to.
I also saw little civility when he did so; it was a stream of things like "fraud" and "rant" and "ignorant" and "go read this book".
Then assumptive interrogation, dismissal, dismissal, explanation of possible misinterpretation, referential dismissal, seeking third party agreement of dismissal, referential statement, possible resurrection (I had hope here!), conditional dismissal, dismissal, ad inobservantium, ad inscitium, ad nauseum.

I absolutely was...but most exchanges were replete with semantics and slight, even those with decent sets of fact. I had a feeling we lost most of what little audience there was, if for nothing more than that.
Case in point.

I had a feeling everyone would end up agreeing on certain points, and I found myself agreeing with certain points from everyone, but it quickly devolved from debate into bitching.
Like in prison, bitches can piss and moan, but bigger men get their say, and can get it without calling a bitch a bitch.

My recommendation was to be the bigger men. Stop qualifying each other's responses, or lack thereof, and formulate contention. I'd still like to see that.

Well, this is false.

For anyone who cares, I gave a statement of principle at the end of page 6.

You know trying to have a civilized debate is impossible when calling people "trolls" starts.

Pot, meet kettle. Some of us try to have actual debate.