@s2numbuq35i said in #7:
> Had to read your comment five times to unwrap all the layers of sarcasm that you ironically wrapped around Poe's law with your throw-away account. I don't understand why you want to be so vague, or how my comment would be an example of Poe's law. Wasn't I clear that it is my prediction?
>
> I think I do understand your point that we are walking ahead of the ICJ ruling by saying there are crimes, even before the ICJ has spoken. That's true in a sense, although other authorities and experts around the world have already come to a similar conclusion. In my opinion there is ample proof of criminal acts against the population of Gaza.
Edit:
Good. I wrote a long text that, following the reaction of the honorable quoted, I realized how wrong I was, so I edited it.
I wrote here the reason why I responded and the reason why I responded with sarcasm and ambiguity. I realized it was unnecessary. I'm sorry for the trouble of reading the words I write, I know today it's a bit difficult to read something a bit long and if you want to say something a bit complex you have to simplify it into an entertaining tiktok video.
If someone does not understand this message, even after the fifth time he reads it, as happened above, that he should not ask me to explain to him, as happened above, because it will not help and he will not understand the explanation either. As happened before, Lakman is quoted (which is the reason for this edit).
Good Day.