kevkrom saw the posts. If there was anything significant in those posts, kevkrom would have said so.
Moreover, if those deletions were the ‘banning offense,’ Mia T would have been banned AT THAT POINT. She was not. You are ridiculous.
If there was any connection to the deletions, it is this: Mia T’s and kevkrom’s requests for the deletions brought the controversial thread to the attention of the people who make the decisions to ban. There you have it. The connection.
Now to your silly statement about hypothetical argument. It makes my point. Hang it up, already. You are not helping your cause.
Cut your losses, get some gumption and debate someone who can actually answer you.
I thought I was.
Moreover, if those deletions were the ‘banning offense,’ Mia T would have been banned AT THAT POINT.
She made one post after that point. And then she was banned.
If there was any connection to the deletions, it is this: Mia T’s and kevkrom’s requests for the deletions brought the controversial thread to the attention of the people who make the decisions to ban.
That is quite probable. But there has to be something in the thread to require a banning. You just explained though why she wouldn't necessarily have been banned at the moment the deletions took place.
kevkrom saw the posts. If there was anything significant in those posts, kevkrom would have said so.
He didn't dismiss them as empty. She thought they were significant enough to delete. Neither you, nor eye, nor kevkrom, know why Mia was banned, so none of us can know whether what was in those banned items contributed or not, or if simply her asking to remove them contributed or not.
That of course is why, when this started, my summary covered every possible thing in thread that could have led to her banning, without specifying any particular item. Your comments imply I specified that any of those things could have caused the ban, and I said no such thing.
Now to your silly statement about hypothetical argument. It makes my point.
If you have a point, you should type it into the computer, it does nobody any good if you keep it to yourself. I can't refute your argument if you don't make it. "Not helping my cause" is not an argument or a point, nor is "hang it up", "get some gumption", "you are rediculous", or "cut your losses".
I explained the difference between a hypothetical argument and a plausible argument. Of course, if we simply ignore the distinction and go with your unstated definition of "hypothetical argument", it doesn't change the fact that Mia advanced the argument, and voiced her support for it. She didn't state it to refute it, or to simply put it out there for the fun of it.
She meant to harm Fred Thompson by asserting that he was trying to get McCain elected, thereby suggesting he was a fraud and a liar, and hoping to scare people who weren't scared enough of Hillary to vote for Rudy because they were afraid of John McCain.
Unless you want to argue that Mia would post a meaningless argument for no purpose whatsoever, I don't see how you could possibly believe what you are saying now about her argument.