Please tell me what's the best approach in this situation:

 

There was an article on the internet about ex-President George Bush, related to his economic policies. In the comments section, however, I criticized his attack on Afghanistan and got involved in a long discussion. The owner of that website then said, "go through the article first, and don't write comments not associated with the article".

 

My question is, how should I have responded?

 

****

 

Actually, I replied that the article was about G. Bush and my comments were also related to him, so there's no reason why I shouldn't write those comments under that article. He then remarked, "Which razor does George Bush use...Blue II or Mach3? I think Mach3....this is also related to George Bush."

 

****

 

Can u suggest a response that wouldn't be apologetic and neither could it be countered by a sarcastic comment such as the "George Bush's razor" comment?

I don't really know what kind of website or discussion you are talking about so I'll not give a definite answer here. I do, however, have full sympathy for people writing an article about topic X and not wanting the discussion about their article to descend into the old and never-finished discussion about Y that became boring years ago. The standard procedure on this forum for cases like yours is to split the discussion off into a separate thread, so that the original intention of the discussion (economic politics of Bush) is largely preserved while people interested in discussing the other topic (invasion of Afghanistan) can still continue with their discussion.

Please tell me what's the best approach in this situation:

 

 

 

 

Can u suggest a response that wouldn't be apologetic and neither could it be countered by a sarcastic comment such as the "George Bush's razor" comment?

Maybe a little ....@*&*%%@#% would do the trick???