As you can see, it’s just me who has a problem with you, The Ryan. There’s no need whatsoever to look at yourself for even the slightest responsibility with regards to me not understanding a single bit of all those eloquent words you again produced. Obviously. Everybody else loves you, and thinks you’re a concise and coherent debater.
You smoked me good, man. Wow, what an asskicking that was.
I won’t be able to sit for days, let me tell you that.
Stove, hot plate, BBQ, 1920s style death ray, crock pot, microwave, toaster oven . . . so many ways of cooking meat.
Awwwwwww. Can I kiss it better?
While I appreciate your kind offer, would you be terribly offended if I politely decline? 
The lesson here is :
Never get into a parsing contest with The Ryan.
Especially since first you’d have to explain to The Ryan what “parsing” is. 
Well, to The Ryan’s credit, he’d find 13 different definitions for the term “parsing”, 12 of which contextually fit into your statement. He’d argue against the 13th definition, which stems from an ancient Algonquin custom of boiling whale blubber.
uhhhh huhhh? whuh?
I ran this through the Babelfish Translator and it still didn’t come out any clearer.
So breaking it down step by step I get something like this:
With me so far?
And now for the second part, which was less than successful. The italics are my inner logical being dialoguing and struggling with the actual context.
Parsing the Parsemeister? Boy, you’re begging to be locked up in the looney bin!
Esprix
And boy-howdy, that Dorothy Parker could make some mean boiled whale blubber.
Gee, Coldfire, I asked you a question, and you didn’t answer it. Just dancing around the issue, huh? Weaseling out of answering my question, I take it?
You said that I said something that I did not say, and you have refused to admit error. You can point to all the posters who don’t like me that you want, but all you’re doing is showing that you don’t have a legitimate response. Did I say what you claimed? What other people think of me is irrelevant to that question, and you ought to be ashamed of yourself for resorting to such a blatant arguentum ad populum.
I’m willing to accept responsibility; it is you that is trying to duck it. You posted inaccuracies and insults, and you blame me for the fact that the discussion was not constructive. I was actually trying to communicate, and you showed concern only for attacking me. If I failed to communicate, then fine, I accept responsibility for my point not getting across. But you getting pissed off, you yelling screaming because you didn’t like my response, you insulting me and saying that I said things that I never said, those were all your decisions, and if you think I should accept responsibility for them, you’re quite immature. I am responsible only for my own actions, not yours. If you were simply asserting that I do a poor job of getting my point across, then that would be something that I would have to consider. But that’s not what you accused me of. You accused me of deliberately being obtuse. And you present the opinions of others as support. Well, they don’t matter. Because there’s only one person that knows what my intention was, and that’s me. There is no need to look at myself for responsibility, because I already know with complete certainty that what you say is false. I know that I am not being deliberately obtuse.
Truer words were never spoken.
ROTFLMAO!
Oh, and The Ryan, it is Saturday. You are not supposed to post on Saturday.
although once you’ve been confronted with the data that many people find you to be obtuse and you refuse to alter your presentation, perhaps, you’ll understand why some people may suspect that at some level it is a deliberate choice?
Right you are, my boy. You cannot help being obtuse. There is no deliberation at all. You come by it naturally.
Hey, he’s not supposed to post on a Sunday either, and it’s Sunday here.
You are SO in big trouble The Ryan.
If you weren’t meaning to indicate what you meant when referring to the other’s previous indication, then why the hell don’t you refer to it? They all can judge by inference what was originally posted that it alone can be meant to be a judgmental post that infers what it means. You’re just not owning up to the personal responsibility of judging what’s right or wrong indicating that any referrals to the other post is not the responsible way to mean anything other than what is being implied by inferrence. By replicating the arguments of the latter post, you’re judging it by its own referrals to the judgments you make, and thus arguing for the exact opposite of what you didn’t mean to not infer.
So grow up. And bring back sausage pie.
The Ryan: you’re an idiot.
That is all.
I’ll second that, Coldfire. Won’t make a damn bit of difference, unfortunately.
Esprix
So if someone knows that others find him to be short, and he continues to be short, it must be a deliberate choice? It’s not like I say “well, I know people won’t understand this, but I don’t care”. I don’t see how having someone think that I was saying that someone was wrong was a foreseeable consequence of saying that they don’t have a point.