The problem is that people keep posting threads on various topics, and unlike most others, joboo keeps discussing meta issues rather than the issues themselves.

For example, in this thread everyone was discussing the Benghazi story and how the story was evolving, and presumably drawing their own conclusions. On the other hand, instead of discussing the evolution of this story, joboo rather discussed his own personal conclusions about it, skipping any mention of the actual content.

Because naturally people each draw their own conclusions, these meta discussions easily create conflict. When discussing just the content we only have to agree on the facts, which is easy. But by trying to predict the future and discuss it at a meta level, we have to either do no thinking on our own and accept someone else's conclusion, or our conclusion has to just happen to be exactly the same.



Conclusion: meta discussions are only appropriate if you've previously started with the subject matter itself and evolved a line of thought leading to your analysis and prediction. When the thoughtful discussion leading to the meta analysis is completely skipped, people feel manipulated or confused.

(This post is a meta meta post, but it is (presumably) ok because I have evolved my reasoning within the post, starting with previous content.)