4 ms·

You seem to be nitpicking when the reality is that this is a person who is aggrieved at service of legal process, caused by Amazon, unjustly compelling him to d

You seem to be nitpicking when the reality is that this is a person who is aggrieved at service of legal process, caused by Amazon, unjustly compelling him to do disproportionately onerous legal work, all in an attempt to discredit and/or dissuade him, and/or gain something for a countersuit. It's really not clear where you're going with this nitpicking, nor why. For the common person that's a pretty damn good approximation to being "sued", not that most people in this comment thread have actually said that in any case. So it's either a weird flex or a pretty bad faith attempt to throw up chaff.

sjsdaiuasgdia 3y ago
Ok here I'll spell it out for you: Initial person said: "hey this actually looks like a subpoena not him being sued" Next person said: "The dude involved said lawsuit, duh" Me: "If you look at the actual documents the dude involved posted a picture of, it's a subpoena not a lawsuit" You and that other account: "these are the same thing because both can be tools to suppress others" The point that a subpoena can also be a tool to suppress someone is valid. I don't know why it's an issue in this specific branch of the thread, which started with someone pointing out a valid factual error, which got a flippant response ignoring what they said, and then I pointed out the evidence in the source that backs up the factual error reported by the previous poster. Your fight isn't with me it's with someone else but you seem to have latched on to me for whatever reason. Anyway, have a great day ;-D