Comment on I'm not creative enough to think of a title

• irmoz@reddthat.com ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  What point do you think you’re making? That I should check the age of replies in my inbox before replying to them? What age is the max - 2 days or something? I didn’t know how old it was.

  source

  • FlyingSquid@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    EDIT: I just checked - nope, you are the one who waited 3 days to reply.

    What it looks like, after I have actually bothered really check (unlike you) is that it took three days for reddthat.com and lemmy.world to sync up.

    Also, nice distraction technique, changing the subject.

    I didn’t change the subject, I directly addressed something you said, which was: “Can we leave this yet? It’s really not that important.” Accusing someone of distracting or changing the subject when they respond to something you said is highly dishonest, and I think you know that.

    So you’re not going to contest the tone that your comment conveyed?

    I will contest your subjective interpretation of my “tone” (I’m not even sure how you can get someone’s tone from text) when you accept that my only intent here was to understand something I didn’t understand. Something you have yet to accept.

    So do you want this to end or not? The fact that you keep replying suggests you don’t. Prove me wrong and don’t reply to this.

    source

    • irmoz@reddthat.com ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      What it looks like, after I have actually bothered really check (unlike you) is that it took three days for reddthat.com and lemmy.world to sync up.

      Nice unsupported claim. I see a comment of mine with a comment of yours replying three days later. No ambiguity there.

      I didn’t change the subject, I directly addressed something you said,

      Good that you said “something”, you slippery devil, because it indeed was one thing among many, the others of which you ignored.

      Accusing someone of distracting or changing the subject when they respond to something you said is highly dishonest, and I think you know that.

      It’s not dishonest when I mean it. And I do, because you laser focused on that one statement while ignoring the others. And this being a new subject, unrelated to the actual conversation (which, may I remind you, is about your comment appearing to be hostile, and not about how long people take to reply!!) it is clearly dishonest of you to ignore the original subject to focus in on this. My statement earlier was simply an aside, which it was it was tacked on to the end.

      I will contest your subjective interpretation of my “tone”

      All interpretations are subjective. I see you’re trying to muddy the waters here.

      (I’m not even sure how you can get someone’s tone from text)

      Yet another attempt to weaken my statement without addressing it.

      when you accept that my only intent here was to understand something I didn’t understand.

      Did I say otherwise? No. So why should I recant a statement I didn’t make?

      So do you want this to end or not?

      Of course.

      The fact that you keep replying suggests you don’t.

      How so? Prove that.

      Prove me wrong and don’t reply to this.

      “Prove you don’t want me to rob you and give me your money willingly.”

      See, I can make a false ultimatum, too.

      source

      • FlyingSquid@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        Like I thought. You don’t want it to end so you replied to me again. You can’t get over this idea that I just didn’t understand something. You are so fixed on this weird ‘tone’ idea of yours. Believe it or not, you can’t always accurately guess a person’s tone over text that way because, believe it or not, you can’t hear vocal inflections over text.

        And this time it took a day to sync up.

        Your instance is shit.

        Looking forward to your next irate reply to sync up next Tuesday.

        source