In response to softlaw2's comment:
Or rather, you responded incorrectly by saying I didn't comment on the subject matter.
You didn't comment on the subject matter, you immediately went to invective and a cataonic diatribe that had nothing to do with the subject.
The subject was dealing with your treatment of Afleck and what he should do with his money.
No, the subject matter was not "my treatment of A-Fleck". Your emotional invective and meaningless "judgment" comment isn't the subject. My comment wasn't "what he should do with his money", it was that he needs to do as he says, not as he does.
As you lawyers would say, you introduced the "evidence" or the subject, thereby making it germain. The subject of hypocrisy you didn't miss. Seems to have stung you. That was the point.
evidence. "Germane" has nothing to do with evidence admissibility.
Try not to play like a bully.
This from a poster who opens with "maniacal" and then pontificates about "judgmental". The bully is you, and the censors who are trolling along with you.
This was fun. Try again.
Very proud of you catching the homonyms and typos. You aren't a complete maroon after all.
But you still are wrong. You brought up the subject I responded to. The onus is on you.
Give it another try.
Look up diversion while you are at it. You use it all the time, but don't allow others to us it. You go off subject and interject all manner of inflammatory stuff ... and think we should sit here and take it.
Oh ... just in case you wondered were wondering, I was laughing at you, not with you.*
*See, I can correct my grammar as well as my spelling. Not hard. Easy, like you.