So far there is no proof of abuse.
There may be an (99% likely automated) overreaction, but not abuse.
That does not make it a lot better, but you should be a bit more careful with accusations, don't you think?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
That accusation has been verified a thousand times over.
I don't think you understand
A) the difference between this case we are talking about and other cases
B) the concept of abuse
I don't think you understand that both of our comments are generic. How could I possibly not understand the concept of abuse? Don't insult my intelligence.
Then don't write stuff that is simply wrong.
LOL you've already admitted that I'm right.
You've already implied I'm right about "the other cases". The statements are generic, so we aren't talking about a case. Welcome to being aggressively incorrect. Can you admit that you're in the wrong here, or are you one of those people who never does?
Even if I was wrong you're still rude.
This is your argument? Really? This is really the argument you want to make? Doesn't even deserve a response.
No. I merely stated that each case has to be looked upon as single event. You can't say this one case is abuse just because there were (if they were) other cases of abuse before.
And in this case I don't see anything that shouts abuse.
I admit I am wrong if you can proof it. Not when you just make it up.
Where did I say that to you?