> They got to have their say. Editorial published, made international news. I imagine all the conference attendees read it if they cared. Seems like a non-issue.

If it's such a non-issue, why should they have been forcefully ejected from the premises over it? And why do you feel so strongly that they should have been?

▲

roenxi an hour ago | parent [-]

> And why do you feel so strongly that they should have been?

I don't. It makes literally no difference to me; especially since I've skimmed through the actual paper they were handing out anyway.

I'm just trying to figure out if there is actually an issue here or whether we're just having an anti-Trump session. And I'm arguing with JCC which is its own reward.

▲

JumpCrisscross an hour ago | parent [-]

> I'm arguing with JCC which is its own reward

I don’t think any of your comments deserve to be downvoted, for what it’s worth.

	▲	roenxi an hour ago \| parent [-]
		The downvoters are their own mysterious nonverbal community. Most of the time I don't see them as part of the conversation.