Sparkly: Okay… I’m gonna try phrase this as well as I can, and I apologise in advance if you manage to take offence. And that’s my last insincere apology on this thread.
Without meaning to sound harsh, there is literally nothing in your most recent ‘response’ that correlates even vaguely to anything I’d said. And I’m happy to elaborate.
Firstly, you started off with saying ‘thats (sic) VERY insulting’. Nothing in the post before that could have possibly offended you. In fact, I’d apologised for any offence possibly inadvertently caused by my first post.
Your next sentence is also a non-sequitur. I personally had asked you to explain in slightly more detail why you disagreed with Joseph. Telling me some ‘lady judges’ were ‘amazing people’ does not constitute a response in any sense. I’d only chipped in to ask if you were going to attempt to clarify your views, as opposed to simply posting unsubstantiated, emotional statements. The reason I’d asked is because I was following the conversation with interest, it being an interesting topic to discuss. You seemed to disagree with several posters, but you didn’t explain yourself. So I asked you to explain yourself, simply to see if you were merely being provocative or actually had a coherent point to make. And your next post confused me even further.
So I ask again. Are you planning on explaining your viewpoint? Defending it? Challenging others’?