Our exchange started at post 27, where I opined that Jarrett's remark wasn't helpful because he did not explain, and beyond that I stated objective facts about Sessions' recusals.
In response, at post 83, you asked me to offer an explanation why Sessions didn't resign, and offered your analysis or opinion of his failure to resign.
I tried to end our conversation at post 93, citing no benefit (without explanation), and allowing your position to stand without rebuttal.
You expanded on your positions vis-a-vis Sessions failure to resign at post 136, and asserted that there was no way I could counter them without exposing the weakness of support for Sessions recusals, or something like that:
You see my questions as being "posed in bad faith", because you can't answer them without forcing yourself to admit the obvious logical conclusion, which is: ...
I replied at post 137, again allowing your position to stand without rebuttal.
At post 140, you made a few remarks about our exchange, one of which was not wanting to challenge me on the logic behind my assertions.
At post 170, I pointed out that the observation in my initial post, the one at 27, didn't depend on logic. I linked to the confirmation hearings to support my observation. I also explained that I viewed debating our disparate opinions on Sessions' failure to resign would not have benefit, as it would be repetitive, "same old stuff" that has been appearing on "the Sessions threads" for a few months.
That brings us to your post, asking me why I voice my opinion at all on these threads.
As seen in the above summary of our exchange, I have avoided voicing and justifying my opinion of Sessions. I entered the thread to leave a couple non-contentious facts relating to the scope and existence of sessions' recusals; facts that are chronically overlooked, misrepresented, and misunderstood.
-- If you want to comment, but not engage, post a disclaimer of some sort. --
I appreciate your suggestion, but think I manage my posting style okay. In this case, as mentioned above, I posted some relevant facts. Whether participants have fact-based debate or not is on them. I had no intention to debate in this thread, just to leave facts, and to explore Jarrett's contention about "wrong law." I believe my engagement with you was frank and civil, even though (on my choice) it didn't get to the substance of our difference. It would have been easier to ignore you.
You were the one looking for an argument. Find somebody elese to argue with, the board is loaded with posters.
I honestly don't know what put a bee up your bonnet. I've been more than civil with you throughout this exchange, yet you continue to toss covertly hostile barbs at me.
I wasn't looking for an "argument" from you or anyone else. I sought to engage you with a different point of view, which you've turned into some sort of process crime.
Fine. You want to speak, but not be spoken to. I get it. Bye.