Oh wow. If you're going to only respond to a minor side point then quote it or identify what you are replying to.
I didn't pick up on you attempting to derail the conversation because it was about "this is an about-face from Kennedy" - this is what the title of the post even is about.
It's not. He's been entirely consistent, and factually correct. And he's committed to answering your "what's the tradeoff" question.
So you're not saying you're upset at RFKj, you haven't identified anywhere he was wrong, he's committed to answering your question. Do you even have a point you are trying to make? What do you want to have a conversation about.
I never said I was upset with him, and you're moving the goalposts.
OP: "He spoke out against that particular one."
Me: "Ok where did he say that?"
You: "You're ignoring half of the equation"
You are moving the goalposts, and you have no information.
No, I responded to your R0 comment with my first reply, and you don't want to have that conversation.
Oh wow. If you're going to only respond to a minor side point then quote it or identify what you are replying to.
I didn't pick up on you attempting to derail the conversation because it was about "this is an about-face from Kennedy" - this is what the title of the post even is about.
It's not. He's been entirely consistent, and factually correct. And he's committed to answering your "what's the tradeoff" question.
So you're not saying you're upset at RFKj, you haven't identified anywhere he was wrong, he's committed to answering your question. Do you even have a point you are trying to make? What do you want to have a conversation about.