Of course I know that. That’s completely missing the point that the post I was specifically addressing was saying Terr hadn’t done this.
At no point did I say DT wasn’t guilty becauseTerr was also guilty. That would be the Fallacy. See, I already anticipated this argument.
Calling them out by name? Sicks could have posted the rest of his post without the mild DT dig and it wouldn’t change the substantive content. So the DT dig is just that - a dig, an attempt to distance himself from DT’s *tone *(while spouting the same opinions).
Like I said, very mild trolling.
Nope, I know that the Fallacy is pertinent to the case, but I didn’t commit it. See above.
Fair enough. But should I report such things in future, I can expect some Mod response, I take it? (Possibly to me, to tell me I’m overreacting, that’s OK)
oookay. So you respond twice to the same post of mine, ignoring the clarification I posted after your first response? And then when I point you back to that clarification, your answer is “No”?
I’ve made comments in posts similar before, about DT. When I’ve done it, it’s not been to poke DT, but rather to try to head him off, and I think I don’t mention his name (I’m too lazy to go look it up). That is, if I’m starting a thread about partisan politics, or religion, I don’t want it to get derailed into a discussion of whether Republicans really are devils or whatever, so I’ll sometimes make some comment along the lines of, “And yes, I know some of you think Republicans are devils, so if we can just let that be understood, maybe we can move on to a different discussion.”
I do think there’s a place for such comments, but it’s probably good to leave out names.
I’m not making a clever point. I fucked up. Somehow, I got you and MrDibble mixed up. I just wasn’t paying attention. The snark I posted and thought was kinda funny, though mildly inappropriate for ATMB, doesn’t even work when I realize you are two fucking different people. God damn, I’m an idiot.
This isn’t a joke, I really did fuck up here. And I apologize.
As someone already noted, there was no prediction that PosterB was going to muddle the water. The person in question was agreeing with what PosterB had said in other threads on the same subject. It might not be kosher to call anyone out by name before they enter a thread, but this wasn’t a case of someone take a pot shot at another poster.
That’s just the thing, I don’t see the dig at DT. I could see it if he had presented DT in a negative light in that post. I don’t think he’s done so though. To me, that post just says “Before DT says it, I’ll say it”. That doesn’t seem to be even very mild trolling.
I don’t care. I thought you did, because you were arguing about it. Clearly neither of us care, so we can drop it.
That’s not how I read it - to me, the implication was “before DT derails this particular train of thought with vitriol, let me just get this point across” - anyway, like I said, I consider it a very mild dig, just worthy of a “Tut tut”, probably not worth even an explicit Note as such. But to me, there is certainly a hint of anticipation there. A certain lawn-chairy-pullingness, if you will.
Or I could be completely misreading it, I dunno. It doesn’t toast my biscuits, I’m happy with tom’s explanation.
I just personally feel DT might get along with others a bit better if even the people on his own side (as much as there are) weren’t constantly needling him. But that might just be me.
And you’re armed. That gives me an uneasy feeling.
This is not sport. There are no teams. There is not one person on here that agrees with every single thought of mine. So I’m a team of one. Even if someone agrees with a particular subject with me they can still go about expressing themselves in an obnoxious way that I would criticize.