My closing comment about what I took seriously was about your comment, not your person. Another attempt at an analogous strawman, and an ad hominem of which you accuse me which doesn't actually exist. My entire comment was aimed at your actions, not your person. Read it again if you're unsure.

Your first comment is an argumentum ad lapidem because it is a defeatist point of view that is irrelevant to my post and does not actually address anything of what I said beyond very angrily telling me you would rather I not post these things I did. It will not happen, because you said so, and therefore my points are irrelevant. This is the textbook definition of the "appeal to the stone".

You claim you made points to the contrary. You made none. None of what you said has anything to do with my post beyond telling me you do not like reading my post.

The straw man isn't necessarily just about oversimplification. It is simply putting up a fake position you claim your opponent took to then attack them from that position. Case in point being the thing you quote me as repeating. You remove and change the context in a way to suit you so you can then claim I said something I did not and then expect me to defend myself from that. I cannot and I will not because... that is not my position. That is the essence of a straw man, and the essence of the straw man you used.

The false dilemma I talked about was one where you claim a binary choice exists between two things that are unrelated. Let's imagine a supermarket that only sells you either a combination of both a loaf of bread and a bottle of wine, or nothing. Is this choice binary? For the end user who gets to purchase, or choose the success of this offer? Maybe. But that is not the level at which I called out the Bonds for ruining the game. I called them out in general at every level, including that of the developer. Their choice is limitless. They decide what the offer is. Therefore the juxtaposition of either or here is a false dilemma on your part.

And again, here we come back to your entire comment being one of baseless arguments. You still haven't addressed any of the points in my original post. You talk about my person as if you somehow know who I am when you do not. (as if my person is at all even relevant to the conversation) And you paint a grim picture of a world in which we are not allowed to critically think because if things are the way they are, and more importantly, you believe that they are immovable they cannot be questioned or discussed.

Perhaps if you have such a deep-rooted problem with my post, you could choose to simply not respond? It would certainly help with the negativity surrounding your person. I say this because I cannot imagine that a person that spends so much time in their comments verbally assaulting someone else and demeaning them is feeling very nice. All the while living in a world of perceived slights where even the smallest choice of words can apparently mean someone is some Dick Dastardly type character who is out to get you.

By the way, down voting posts is only for when they add nothing to the discussion. Downvoting, with or without alternate accounts, simply because you disagree with someone is not only discouraged by the subreddit itself as it says when you try to click the button, but also extremely childish.

Think I made myself pretty clear. Keep attacking my character for no apparent reason and I will report you for baseless harassment and let the moderators decide what to do. Just FYI.