> I'm mainly responding to the first part: "As much as I dislike class action law-suit trolling"
Yeah I got that. My point was that first part was just setting himself up to explain why he thought this lawsuit was a good idea - which you were arguing as well. ie you're focusing on the wrong part of his post and thus arguing against his post while agreeing with the majority of it.
> "I also don't see how I have simply re-iterated the same post, OP and I are looking at different angles of the same issue. Fundamentally I think we do agree: Lenovo did a shitty thing and should pay for it."
Hence why I said "near-reiteration" rather than "simply reiterated". You still argued the same points and came to the same conclusion regardless of your differing starting point with regards to class action lawsuits.
> I simply don't think there is anything wrong with the method or the result here. This is exactly what a class action lawsuit is intended for, there's no trolling about it.
Again, nobody is suggesting otherwise. You're preaching to the converted. ;)
Yeah I got that. My point was that first part was just setting himself up to explain why he thought this lawsuit was a good idea - which you were arguing as well. ie you're focusing on the wrong part of his post and thus arguing against his post while agreeing with the majority of it.
> "I also don't see how I have simply re-iterated the same post, OP and I are looking at different angles of the same issue. Fundamentally I think we do agree: Lenovo did a shitty thing and should pay for it."
Hence why I said "near-reiteration" rather than "simply reiterated". You still argued the same points and came to the same conclusion regardless of your differing starting point with regards to class action lawsuits.
> I simply don't think there is anything wrong with the method or the result here. This is exactly what a class action lawsuit is intended for, there's no trolling about it.
Again, nobody is suggesting otherwise. You're preaching to the converted. ;)