A living example of a strawman setup by the original poster

The post I responded to, which you later edited, simply responded "Don't bother" to Zapffe.
You are talking about me, engaging in strawman... I dont think so... I am just engaging in a conversation.. and I am suggesting reasons why Zapffe seems to be wasting everyone's time and NOT contributing... but anyhow, I am basing on a set of communications with him... Yes, I could be proven wrong that he is in fact a good contributor... but in my experience with his various posts, he seems to admit that he is NOT really contributing in any kind of meaningful way.. of course, he does NOT use those words or come to that conclusion.. but whatever, if posters admit that their purpose is to just spread FUD, then what good are they? NOT MUCH>.. and accordingly, they should be removed, expelled, etc... .. .
Of course, I have NO power or authority to influence how much trolling is tolerated by the forum... and they come to their own judgements regarding whether posters (members) are contributing to the forum
You missed my point completely. I replied to your original post before you'd edited it, hence the strawman. Perhaps I should have said moving target. Either way I simply meant my response was meaningless when set against the edits.
That said, who defines "contributing"? Those holding BTC and not wanting to hear anything that suggests money might be lost? Those looking to short? Bears? Bulls? Dinosaurs? Trolls (aka, anyone holding a viewpoint different than one's own)? Everything said is a contribution in this cesspool - at least any lurker probably thinks so.