Perhaps I should've been clearer. My point was that if they don't mind killing a journalist, why would they mind if a small number of innocents die as well?
With that clarification, does it make more sense? If not, why?
It's also incredibly disrespectful. Posting "and?" requires zero effort from you and contributes nothing. If I want to continue the discussion I have go over my comment and guess what the problem was. I have to describe what I guessed your argument might be before I restate what I said. I admit that my original comment was not particularly well-written or insightful, but I think if it it was worth a response it should get more than a single punctuated word.
My point was that if they don't mind killing a journalist, why would they mind if a small number of innocents die as well?
Probably because they don't feel the journalist is innocent. And practically speaking, you're probably a lot less likely to get away with murder when there are bystander victims.
I'm surprised that you interpreted it that way. You're right that my comment likely involved very little effort, but that isn't how I assess the value of comments. I thought my brief comment would be enough to communicate what I wanted to, but it wasn't.
Let's put this down to being a well-intended miscommunication and move on.
You're right that my comment likely involved very little effort, but that isn't how I assess the value of comments.
Of course effort is not the only way to evaluate a comment. There's also relevance, insight, knowledge, creativity, humor, and more. The point was that one could go around tagging "And?" to every single comment on the site if no one objected. It's an ambiguous challenge that doesn't add anything constructive.
Let's put this down to being a well-intended miscommunication and move on.
Sure, but just to be clear blame was never my goal.
