>> Why are you are reading emotion into this? > I'm reading that you're upset that the conversation has moved on because you're complaining that someone made a

>> Why are you are reading emotion into this? > I'm reading that you're upset that the conversation has moved on because you're complaining that someone made a comment "out of context" and I disagree. That’s you reading something in that isn’t there. There is no complaint. >> They didn’t agree. They added a decontextualized statement a bit like the one they were following > I read it as an agreement. I see you don't. You're clearly think it's an out-of-context opinion and I disagree about that. Ok, but nothing supports this. It’s not a statement of agreement. You are welcome to read that into it if you like though. > Businesses that are uninsurable are arguably rent-seeking to stay in business. No. That clearly doesn’t follow. >> Why do you feel the need to defend these statements? Different people have some very different opinions. > Because I can. Because I'm bored. Because I want to. Because it's not against any rule. Because I think you're wrong. Take your pick. > Why do you feel the need to attack these statements? There is no attack. I think you are imagining that there is one. That is why I asked why you felt the need to defend the statements. > Why do you feel it's necessary to claim that an opinion is made out of context and doesn't contribute to the conversation? Why do you continue a long reply chain denying someone who disagrees with you? That's effectively what you've asked me. Because I was curious about why you were defending the statements, a question you haven’t answered.