Comment on Probably accurate
papalonian@lemmy.world 3 weeks agoMore condescending commentary… ok?
Who is this person, and why do I care about them? And if they’re so important, and you’re so clever, why can’t you keep their name consistent in your own comment?
DagwoodIII@piefed.social 3 weeks ago
why can’t you keep their name consistent in your own comment?
You seem confused. I referred to Ms. Crawford twice, and both times as ‘Ms. Crawford.’
Also, your edit is as confusing a jumble as I’ve ever read. I have no idea what you’re unhappy about.
Finally, I didn’t ‘assume’ anything. I’ve run across Ms. Crawford’s comments in the past, and happened to remember the name. I guess I overestimated you; I should have added an ‘/s’ but I thought the using the terms ‘worldwidewebbing’ and ’OKJeeves’ would convey my sarcastic intent.
papalonian@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
My point is that your original comment was not to Cawthorn. It was to someone completely different. Cawthorn could have a swastika in his profile picture and call for the extinction of all trans people and it wouldn’t justify your being rude to some random guy online who said, “yeah the founding fathers would be horrified”.
You’re acting like you’re talking directly to the OP and responding directly to Cawthorn’s tweet, when you’re not.
I’m not saying you’re assuming Cawthorn’s position. I’m saying you’re assuming Dookieman12’s position. What do Cawthorn’s past comments have to do with the person you’re actually responding to?
DagwoodIII@piefed.social 3 weeks ago
You’re adorable.
Don’t ever change.
FreeAZ@sopuli.xyz 3 weeks ago
You’re an idiot.
Please change.
papalonian@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
So are ad hominem attacks when someone can no longer defend their position, or even acknowledge the obvious mistake they sarcastically defended.
I don’t see why I would, based on this interaction.