Yes, you are correct. Do you object to this?

Nope. I was simply making an observation. My first version of that post was going to mention that I wasn't making a critique, but only making that observation in a completely neutral manner. But I made the decision to cut it out so I can work on improving my brevity. Which once again makes it clear that brevity isn't always a good thing, contrary to the insistence of those who happen to prefer it.

Love you Dissident, but you're seriously cramping my style here ;-)

Thank you for loving me anyway!

Wish you hadn't replied to a question that could trivially be googled... "

I'm glad I did, since it showed how easily people inclined towards objectivity can refute the claims made by antis.

posting easily answered questions in order to appear innocuous and curry favor" is right out of the troll playbook.

Not everyone here agrees Billi is a true blue troll as opposed to an obsessed anti. I think the jury may still be out on that one.

I firmly believe that the only way to defang one of this kind

Don't you mean one of its kind?

is to starve it of all attention other than derision. What do you think?

I think some degree of opposing the likes of Billi provides food for thought to fence-sitters and further insights to dyed-in-the-wool pro-choicers. It also shows how easy it is to refute the same old things trotted out ad nauseum by the antis over the past few decades. And it also gives those who may want it an opportunity to hone their debating skills, even if against a relatively easy opponent.

Eventually, we will likely grow bored of Billi's antics, stop responding, and just let her (it?) shout to the cyber-wind.