🎀 Wisteria 🎀

I responded to you immediately, even before the pointless discussion. It's strange that you're focusing on it as something important and meaningful.

Context: Alex said that he was unaware of the concept of the character Lok. I replied that this was the whole point of the discussion with Lok, because there was no discussion between us at all. Just a question and an answer. That's it. You said that you and Alex gave me an answer. I told you that you didn't participate in my discussion with Lok at all. Is it clear now?

You had a dialogue about business, from which even I understood the obvious answer.

A dialogue about business is not the same as an answer about what one of the leaders is like and what the organization as a whole will be. It provides some information, but not all. A leader of such an organization can be either a principled businessman (who doesn't eat kittens, of course), or someone who donates money to orphanages. I'm exaggerating here, of course, but such traits can also serve as "pros" and "cons" for using one concept or another. For example, if a person does things that contradict your ideals, for one reason or another, you are unlikely to want to work with him when there is an alternative. Even if the work itself is something that you wouldn't mind taking on. But if a person works for a good cause, in your understanding, but uses ambiguous methods, you may turn a blind eye to these methods. And here, descriptive information is desirable, rather than evaluative "true neutral" (some people considered the Kalevrites to be good). I hope my position is clear here too?