[Kaimetsu]

Originally Posted by falco10291029

Then show where it was implied

I did, later in the post.

I agree, but the same factors should be used within like cases. THis should be used the same way because it is just about the same type of thing. The supreme court does things like this all the time [...], so why shouldn't we

Because that's a ridiculously stupid approach. It assumes that the precedential cases were handled in a sensible fashion, which often isn't the case here.

Why shouldn't it? Similar cases should have similar results, or we basically have hypocrites for mods

No, we have fools for mods. People like Moon Goddess who close threads on a whim, without any logical justification. Meanwhile, there exist a few that moderate sensibly, and they shouldn't be shackled to the idiotic standards of the rest.

Anyone

Then it's clear that there are potential benefits in any thread, simply because somebody might enjoy posting there.

You implied it

I 'implied' a term that is specific to you? A term that I don't use, a term that I reject on the basis that it is ambiguous and useless? Don't be ridiculous. I made a statement about posting within threads, and I had no intention of tying it to your semantic inventions.

You always claim that no support is given if you aren't convinced

I claim that no support is given if no support is given. You always claim that people claim that no support is given if they aren't convinced if you haven't convinced them. Now, instead of telling each other about each other, could we continue discussing the matters that matter?

one positive reason: Less clutter within the forums

Clutter? Define the term and show how it is a bad thing.

just about anythign after the topic proves its purpose is spam

Is this the definition of spam that encompasses anything and everything that you don't like, or the one that actually has presence within the English language?