>>16881946>Well, I'm no priest, I don't take initiates, and I don't want every idiot harassing my friends.Which is why I told you how to reach out to me, and not the other way around.
>You literally have an open line to them man, What do you mean by "open line"? Please be specific and as objective as possible.
Who is "them"? Please be specific and as objective as possible.
>I'm not gonna sit here and demand you dial my phone from there to prove that it can in fact make phone calls.Again, this is why I gave out my contact info, so you can avoid this bit and just "dial" me directly.
>Are you tying to get me to define evil the concept, or the sort of evil I mean?Yes.
You kind of admitted to the latter already, and moved the goalpost to "the sort of evil *I* mean" rather than the concept of evil, so yes, if you could define this concept of evil that *you* mean, it would be very nice
>You value your privacy, AND I've never physically met you.Correct.
>Do you think me violating your privacy, and then causing you physical harm, the finding and doing of I paid for by harming someone innocent is good instead?I'm sorry, could you rephrase this in English, please?
I'll try my best, but...
>Do you think me violating your privacy, and then causing you physical harmThis statement is simple and straightforward
>the finding and doing of I paid for by harming someone innocent is good instead?This is where it all breaks apart. "The finding"? It could be "then finding", but that wouldn't make any sense given "finding and doing of I paid for by", which makes NO grammatical sense to me no matter how I try to stretch it.
So please, could you try to rephrase that?
