You went from "the majority of the planning", to "was planned", and now "They were planning it on Facebook", all while simultaneously ignoring the question abou

You went from "the majority of the planning", to "was planned", and now "They were planning it on Facebook", all while simultaneously ignoring the question about how much planning is acceptable, thus my comment about if it acceptable to have "a little planning for a treat." This is a move from less than half, to none. That's what I'm referring to. While I'm willing to accept for argument's sake that less than half happened on Parler, we both know that it was more than zero. So what's the acceptable amount? More importantly, you've also conveniently dropped the crux of my argument, about when does the government get to force political association on private entities, including surrendering their private property for political use they disagree with. I would really like an answer to the this. That's why I used the reductio absurdum of having my band practice in your living room. If you'd rather, I'm also open to putting political bumper stickers on your car.