The Offending Posts Commentary Thread

Moiraine said:
That’s good. Had not read the entire topic here but this should have been your first reaction instead of arguing what a fact is. 
Click to expand...


So let me get this straight.

Instead of reading the full thread for cotnext, you came here and vented about something you assumed without all the information.  When you were presented with all the data and saw your assumptions were wrong your immediate reaction was to double down and respond with snark?

How is that any different than what you're accusing me of here?  I looked into it and redacted.  Arguing definitions and another subject all together was a side quest.

Maybe just say you wanted to jump into this with an attitude

 
Last edited by a moderator:
knapplc said:
How many cherwry chips ahoy did you have before you typed this?
Click to expand...


web-shutterstock-105518339.jpg


 
Redux said:
So let me get this straight.

Instead of reading the full thread for cotnext, you came here and vented about something you assumed without all the information.  When you were presented with all the data and saw your assumptions were wrong your immediate reaction was to double down and respond with snark?

How is that any different than what you're accusing me of here?  I looked into it and redacted.  Arguing definitions and another subject all together was a side quest.

Maybe just say you wanted to jump into this with an attitude
Click to expand...






The big difference here is you started out posting an article that was a lie that you were ignorant about, then when people pointed out it was a lie you continued arguing long after with everyone, and argued about the definition of a fact. I had read the entire discussion up to a certain point and at that point you were still making that argument before (finally) looking into the truth of it. I assumed considering it had gone on so long and you were still arguing with ZRod in the Woodshed that you had continued the same path. 

When you told me you had looked into it and I realized I had missed those few posts, I admitted it immediately. I didn’t dig into a deeper hole. And I wouldn’t call it snark but yes, regardless of you finally looking into it, it is still annoying that you started a topic/discussion in P&R on something you were ignorant about. Making a dumb/ignorant post in the Woodshed is a little different. 

It also wasn’t venting. I do that in the f#&% topic. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Moiraine said:
The big difference here is you started out posting an article that was a lie that you were ignorant about, then when people pointed out it was a lie you continued arguing long after with everyone, and argued about the definition of a fact. I had read the entire discussion up to a certain point and at that point you were still making that argument before (finally) looking into the truth of it. I assumed considering it had gone on so long and you were still arguing with ZRod in the Woodshed that you had continued the same path. 

When you told me you had looked into it and I realized I had missed those few posts, I admitted it immediately. I didn’t dig into a deeper hole. And I wouldn’t call it snark but yes, regardless of you finally looking into it, it is still annoying that you started a topic/discussion in P&R on something you were ignorant about. Making a dumb/ignorant post in the Woodshed is a little different. 

It also wasn’t venting. I do that in the f#&% topic. 
Click to expand...


I was misled and owned up to my error.  A year later or so you decided to come cherry pick and pop off without actually reading the part where I owned up to it.  Now you want to continue misunderstanding my misunderstanding a week later because...you're bored?  Just move along, take the L.

Also you "admitting it immediately" was continuing to be snotty about it?  Forgive me for misreading that...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top