I refuted conan’s assertion with a factual case and link for the NYAG for reference. That’s how this is supposed to work.
I have zero understanding for the motivation to move that. Please explain what the goal is here.
Might be because you brought up TRUMP!! in attempt to divert attention away from original OP.
Which BTW Some of us admitted there was problem with NRA.
It’s not a diversion, its a perfect example that responded to your incorrect statement.
But hey, Congrats on the mod promotion Conan!
4 Likes
You want to know a correct response…and that got be doing some digging to find my own answer?
How if you had that option to do over again…which one would you choose?
I don’t understand your question.
It wasn’t directed at you. I was showing another poster 2 different replies to my post. One was whataboutism (Trump) and other one (you) answered my post with your own thoughts.
Which got me looking into more information.
It’s example of how to reply to one post and how not to reply. 
Okay. I got confused. It only happens when I watch golf and blog at the same time.
It was compliment in how to post correctly.
I don’t get it either. The NY AG specifically referred to the Trump charity dissolution as a precedent example of dismantling a corrupt charity. But referencing this part of the filing is somehow off limits. I guess we can only discuss certain parts of what James said and not others?
Some of the best and most informative conversations I’ve been a part of over the years have been a result of side conversations and the free flow of a thread. Micromanaging threads into oblivion seems to only push people to not bother discussing things here.
Suggesting replies have to be constructed in a certain way to make one reply seem better than another, is subjective.
I too am unsure of what the point is?
6 Likes
The point is, injecting Trump into every conversation (in this case about the NRA) is off topic trolling.
6 Likes
