I'm trying to understand why you replied "No" to my "If I understand you correctly, your objection to asking people out at work is that it wastes company time?"
AFAICT, everything else you have said, including your latest reply, is inconsistent with that.
Because your argument, if you are aware that you made it, is that it is “economically repugnant”. That is what you said, and that was your previous argument. You are now arguing with your own argument, saying “No. Why would I have any feelings towards what other people do? That doesn't make any sense.”
That is what it has to do with the discussion, that you are inconsistent and refuse to elaborate on your previous position by claiming it is other people’s position and that you “don’t care”.
The original comment questioned why the person in the article would be concerned about an employee receiving an email containing a request for a date. The answer is that they would have concerns because the worker is on the clock and it is costing them money to have their employee spend time dealing with the request (even if ultimately ignored).
Somehow that turned into my objection, which was illogical. It didn't make sense then and it makes even less sense that it keeps coming up. It has no relevance to the thread... or life in general.
What’s illogical is your inefficient response to the matter. You were asked a simple question, but because said question assumed it was your objection you proceeded to waste time asserting that you do not care, as if that somehow is an important distinction. It was your argument, your opinion on why it is repugnant, and it is how you would feel as the boss in that situation.
So... Alison's objection is that it wastes company time. Right?
If so: Can you see how that was what I meant all along?
If not: I'm afraid I don't understand what you're saying.