T-Mobile merger needing Trump administration approval. The next day, 9 executives had reservations at Trump’s hotel.

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

LTC8K6

Lifer
Mar 10, 2004
28,520
1,575
126
Then why the fuck are you asking why you're discussing it if you're the one that brought it up? Maybe stop interjecting shit that you know doesn't even apply if you want to discuss that actual issue?

You and the Quibbler should get together you two seem to enjoy discussing things in about the dumbest manner possible and you also pull the same stupid "why are we discussing this?" when you're the idiot that brought it up in the first place (and then you want to argue with people over that as well as argue about why you're even discussing it; at least you skipped a step and admitted you brought it up).
What's with the anger?

You said we were discussing terms of a government lease.

I said I thought we were discussing the T-mobile merger / bribery accusation.

The GSA lease violation question seems to be a whole different problem?
Whereas the bribery deal seems related to the emoluments clause?

How did you get so angry?
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,133
30,084
146
What's with the anger?

You said we were discussing terms of a government lease.

I said I thought we were discussing the T-mobile merger / bribery accusation.

The GSA lease violation question seems to be a whole different problem?
Whereas the bribery deal seems related to the emoluments clause?

How did you get so angry?

Actually, you did bring it up. fski simply mentioned that what you are talking about is emoluments, and that it doesn't apply. In and earlier post, you also mentioned that he was already under investigation for his ownership stake, and then the discussion turned to why that doesn't apply.

I mean, this is how these sort of things are supposed to work: bring up a point, maybe it is relevant, maybe not. The best is when both individuals come to the relatively same conclusion if such is based on the arguments that are put forward. When it doesn't work, is when one of the individuals decides that it is better to accuse the other of bringing up something that they themselves brought up (admitting that their point didn't apply, because they actually learned something today), instead of saying "ah cool, now I understand." The adult thing is to gain something from discussion. To learn something new. It is not to refuse such an admission, as it warrants the inexcusable reality of "being wrong!"

When did it become wrong to learn something and admit it, especially if learning something informs or progresses some idea that you previously held in error? When did it become wrong to embrace intelli.....oh, I get it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ivwshane

LTC8K6

Lifer
Mar 10, 2004
28,520
1,575
126
Posters could also tell someone when they think something is irrelevant.

"That's irrelevant."

Two words, no cursing or name calling or burst blood vessels.

But this is politics in America.

It's always Us or Them and no compromise.

Have a good day or night, as the case may be.