>No, the post you replied to was about the 5th Circuit in general. Which was in reply to another post about the 5th circuit, which was in reply to my post abou

>No, the post you replied to was about the 5th Circuit in general. Which was in reply to another post about the 5th circuit, which was in reply to my post about the ruling on this case, which was in reply to a post about the need for regulations to ban chemicals, which was in reply to the linked article about the 5th circuit's ruling on this case. This whole thread is about the ruling on this case. >Once again, not what anyone was doing. It is what you are doing about other people's criticism. Literally what the post I replied to was doing, calling the court "wild" and "twisted". Incidentally, nobody including you has mentioned what about this ruling is "wild" and "twisted" yet despite numerous requests to do so. Are you aware how discussions on a subject matter are conducted? >We were discussing the 5th Circuit's rulings in general. I'm not going to belabor this, you can make up whatever you want to justify your posts, that's your choice. See first point. If you want to talk about the 5th circuit in general, make your own thread. This thread is about the 5th circuit's ruling on the case between EPA and Inhance.