"
Mikrotherion wrote:
Naturally, I don't see that I don't see clearly here. However, you're the one taking offense at something that wasn't directed at you and still don't seem to get it.
If I'm constantly dodging questions, I'm not aware of it. You're writing a lot - maybe I missed something. Please, feel free to ask these questions again, just make a list or something.
Mikrotherion wrote
Well, if you say I was the one who wasn't seeing clearly, then clearly I couldn't clearly see that I wasn't seeing clearly? Clear so far?
So let's keep it that way:
I posted in thread, contributing to the topic at hand and also
agreeing with you that what adghar posted was irrelevant to this thread.
How anyone could take offense at that was and still is beyond me, but I do get that somehow you did take offense, you explained it often enough.
Why did it take so fking long for you to admit it? Was it because of pride or you're just feeling sore and thus, you refused to admit it? Then, you create lots of deceptive arguments just to hide the actual fact?
Mikrotherion wrote
I was asked to let that other thread die, since it was a dumb troll thread that deserves to and every reply would just bump it. I'll get your last post from the other thread over to here and reply to it (
why take so fking long? Is it because I provided evidence for your constant dodging just before you made this reply?). As for the other questions you said I dodged -since you want answers from me you think you haven't already got, it's your job to provide the questions in question (hah). If you choose not to do that, that's your decision.
WOW JUST WOW. Look at the lies again but don't worry, I will be here to expose it again. Take a look at the thread mentioned below. You started an argument with me on page 6 and right below your post, golan4840 asked to let that thread die.
https://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/1911005/page/6
However, that does not stop you from making more replies and instead, you kept the thread alive by making replies all the way from page 6 to page 8 (even though someone already called for the thread to end) till you became speechless and at a loss for words and that's when you decided to dodged my latest reply on that thread in page 8 (https://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/1911005/page/6).
Please take note of the time that you posted your latest reply on that thread
Jun 17, 2017 10:06:33 PM > https://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/1911005/page/8
Now refer to this thread page 6 and check the time that you made the post on page 6
on Jun 17, 2017 10:12:02 PM > https://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/1912554/page/6
See anything? The real fact is that you abandon the thread on "Jun 17, 2017 10:06:33 PM" after feeling some humiliation then, you proceed to start an argument with me in a new thread again on "Jun 17, 2017 10:12:02 PM".
After that, you argued with me all the way from page 6 of this thread till this moment... And you call that not dodging? Even if someone really asked you to let the thread die, (which i highly doubt so because someone already called for the thread to die earlier on and you ignored it by writing more from pg 6 to 8 as mentioned above), you could have bring over my arguments from that thread to this thread and make replies to it. Fact is, you did not UNTIL i said that you are constantly dodging and PROVIDED evidence to which you dodged. That's when you realized that you can no longer dodged it.
Between Jun 17, 2017 10:12:02 to the very moment you made this reply, you could have give replies to my arguments/questions on https://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/1911005/page/8 but you did not, which clearly shows that you are dodging.
Btw, your lies is so easy to expose because why? Because the reason that you gave , " I was asked to let that other thread die' is so stupid and not convincing.
Mikrotherion wrote
Why not? It should actually be sterile since it is immaterial.
Just LOL-ed at that statement......That is why i hate making explanations to people who have trouble understanding English.
Mikrotherion wrote
I did not start an argument. I added to your thread (this should be allowed) and I also explained to adghar that he was wrong, that this a not a thread to post your
opinion about the labyrinth, but reasons to hate it.
You were offended by that post, I explained why there was no reason to be offended, but that was not enough for you. You refer to things from other threads that are totally irrelevant here, so I reply to some of that stuff as well and you totally derail your own thread.
OOOO you did not start an argument? So i assume all the post that you made from page 3 of this thread to this very moment is not arguments? Please, oh please go and learn to tell a better and more convincing lie. Sorry its relevant here, just relevant specifically to you because you dodged my replies in other thread and instead came over here to start another one.
Mikrotherion wrote
You don't say! Fortunately, I don't have trouble understanding English. Am I perfect? Far from it. Are you perfect? Not at all. Language itself is not perfect. Misunderstandings happen. I have misunderstood things in the past and I certainly will in the future, as regrettable as that is. You have misunderstood things in the past and you will in the future.
One of the things you misunderstood recently was reading offense into my post on page 3.
First of all I would like to remind you that the phrase , " You don't say!" is an idiom and not a commonly used one since the phrase "Oh really?" would have easily and conveniently replaces it.
And I would like to remind you that not every English speaking people knows the meaning of every IDIOMS available, especially idioms which are uncommonly used.
Thus, it is understandable to make that mistake but unfortunately, it's simply too complicated for you to understand.
Nope, I have already stated why I am offended by your comments and you, on the other hand, has admitted to know the reason behind it. Now you are singing a different tune accusing me of misunderstanding your post. How can a person claims that he have understood the reason why I took offense and yet say that I have misunderstood at the same time? If you have understand it, then you would not have said that I misunderstood it
How hypocritical is that LOL?
Mikrotherion wrote
No, I'm fully aware what sort of attack you meant. The person misinterpreting here is you. So read again, perhaps you'll understand.
Nope. You are not aware of it. You assumed the word, "attack", which I have used was equivalent to a physical/military assault and that's why you associated that word with "WAR" as shown in your replies. But in actual fact, I was referring to an attack on my arguments.
The reasons that you gave ," the person misinterpreting here is you. So read again, perhaps you'll understand." is just another deceptive excuses to save yourself from embarrassment. Perhaps the real reason is that you ran out of any real arguments and that's why you are resorting to this cheap trick again as it saves you from providing any real argument.
Feeling humiliated and switching to different thread to attack the other person in whichever thread he makes in a clean environment, in an attempt to boost your winning chances? LOL.>>>>>> sounds familiar? this is another questions that you dodged btw.
Since there was no attack, I chose not to reply directly. Instead I have put considerable effort now in explaining that there was no attack, so that you might realize that the question is rendered moot.
Sorry, your reply is just a cheap way of dodging my questions. Just like how you dodge my entire replies/arguments on https://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/1911005/page/8 and came over to this thread and start another argument instead, while totally dodging it completely. It was only when I provided evidence of your dodging, then you began to start to give some replies in the later part of this thread. Just imagine if I did not provide that link/evidence? Would you have made any reply to my arguments on https://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/1911005/page/8/ ?? Most probably not. (see above for explanation)
Mikrotherion wrote
Yes, I understand that you thought I attacked you because you did not understand my post and thought I was attacking you with it. As explained, it was not meant as an attack. That you felt offended by it in the first place is still baffling and
my advice was, since you seem to be so sensitive, to get a thicker skin.
As I have mentioned it time and time and time AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIn... The reason why i felt that your comments was offending was because you intentionally came to this thread (just right before the argument you started against me in another thread) and says that it is "ok" to post things you like for the lab in a thread that I have specifically made for "HATE" for the lab. This directly is in conflict with the topic of discussion and also indirectly encourages people to post "likes" for lab because someone had said it is "ok". This will over-writes the entire purpose of the thread, due to your post.
I see you as someone who do not understand what the topic is about or you lack the intelligence to make relevant and/or intelligent comments.
Get the idea now or it is it too difficult for you to understand? (third time explaining btw)
My advice for you is to get back to basic school and get some lessons on the English language as well as a thicker skin too.
Mikrotherion wrote
If you think my English is broken, your perception is horribly skewed. And again, I don't understand
why you consider my post an attack, only that you obviously do and do not understand that it was not.
One thing that should make you think: I can't remember anyone else in the past 15 years who has ever called my English broken or had trouble understanding me.
Seriously, do you fking know what rubbish are you saying again?
Mikrotherion wrote
I get that now.
At one point you said that you understood why I considered your comments as an attack and the next point you said that you don't understand............. JUST WOW ....HYPOCRISY AT ITS FINEST
HYPOCRISY AT ITS FINEST
HYPOCRISY AT ITS FINEST
HYPOCRISY AT ITS FINEST
Just admit it man. It's just DISGRACEFUL.
LOL at your excuses.
Mikrotherion wrote
You
do have trouble understanding, don't you. Maybe not the meaning of words, but surely thing like tenses.
I already admitted (and look, I'm repeating it) that I
was unaware that a statement in order to be called a logical fallacy does not necessarily have to be wrong. Due to that unawareness of mine, I tried to make a joke asking whether it could be called a Just Because Fallacy even if what was stated using that fallacy was correct. Turned out yes (and there's also the Fallacy fallacy - meaning statement is not wrong on only because it was made using a fallacy). I
am aware of that now.
So the fact actually is that I did not know the meaning and that while that was so I argued accordingly. This has changed in the meantime.
Why can't you answer that simple question?
If you have understood the meaning of logical fallacies in the first place, would you have used the wrong arguments and made the wrong comments, only to be exposed?
Answer is NO.
You kept saying that you know the meaning of "logical fallcies" YET you made the wrong and irrelevant arguments to support your comments > as seen and as proven.
Now when your ignorance is exposed for talking big, you tried to sugar coat that shame by saying ,"I quoted one of your posts and tried (and failed) to make a joke of it." but in actual fact is that you tried to make arguments based on the topic "logical fallacies" and made comments that were awfully irrelevant that it seems fking crystal clear that you do not know any shit about the topic. You made yourself looked like a total joke.
It was only when you are persistently reminded that you are sugar coating your words that you finally gave up and said , " You want me to admit it again? Fine, I tried to make a joke with your post and turns out the joke's on me."
Now compare these 2 sentences
"I quoted one of your posts and tried (and failed) to make a joke of it."
"I tried to make a joke with your post and turns out the joke's on me."
BOTH HAVE TOTALLY DIFFERENT MEANINGS.
The first one is a sugar coated version which simply means that you tried using my quotes and tried to make a joke out of it but failed. There is no indication/suggestion of your foolishness for talking big on a topic which you are unsure of.
The second one means that you tried to sabotage my post by trying to make it as if what I am saying is a joke but ended up becoming the joke itself. There is an indication/suggestion of your foolishness for talking big.
See the difference now or is it too hard for you to understand?
Because of your REFUSAL to admit the real actual truth by sugar-coating it so much to the extend that the entire meaning of the sentences changed and your shame concealed, that is why I have no choice but to keep on arguing about it until you gave up and made a slight un-distorted version of the truth. Not because I do not understand your words or tenses that you have admitted, but because whatever you have admitted is shit and a sugar coated version of the truth. That is why I have to repeatedly say it.
You should have said that , "I tried to make a joke with your post and turns out the joke's on me due to my ignorance". That would be a more truthful representation.
Mikrotherion wrote
And again (like before "You don't say!") you fail to understand a simple and common English phrase. Yet you think you can call my English broken and need to lecture me on the meaning of simple words? Unfortunately you've cut the text to which I replied "I hear you." So let me get it for you:
Let me tell you this again in case its too hard for you to understand
And I would like to remind you that not every English speaking people knows the meaning of every IDIOMS available, especially idioms which are uncommonly used.
Thus, it is understandable to make that mistake but unfortunately, it's simply too complicated for you to understand.
Grading a person's English proficiency based based on idioms and using it as a criteria just goes to show how "intelligent" you are. At least I grade your proficiency based on simple words such as "attack" and your talking big rubbish.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
YoursTruly86 wrote
Not just about the correct usage of that phrase/topic/word, there
's simply too many mistakes that you made such as your inability to name the right page number (it was page 3 instead of page 4). It
may seemed trivial but think again... Why
did you made such a mistake that could be so easily avoided? Was it because you are too quick to jump
into conclusion because hate gets the better
out of your judgement that you forgot how to think properly or was it because
You were so eager to argue with me that you could make such a small mistake. Well
it no big deal as it just a wrong page number but think again...
Every small mistakes adds up to a BIG mistake.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Mikrotherion wrote
You see the stuff I made bold? It may seem trivial (you might argue that the use of "there's" + [plural] is generally accepted these days, so let's not count it) , but all these mistakes would have been so easy to avoid easy to avoid, and, well, they do add up, as you told me.
LOL i looked at the words that you highlighted in bold and extracted it below
may seemed
did you made
into conclusion
out of
Y
it no big deal as it just
LMAO at you seriously, are you so desperate to provide any real arguments that you resort to attacking those MINOR DETAILS? Does the "wrong" usage of those words changed the entire meaning of the sentences such that it became impossible to understand? And btw, its not easily avoided especially when you have to write thousands of words to some people who has difficulty understanding English. I am not so free to do a spell-check for this people.
JUST LOL-ed at your desperation. By the way, the mistakes that you have made was a small but CRUCIAL one. The wrong page number you have given means that I will refer to the wrong page and will make a wrong and/or different argument out of it.
But unfortunately, you have real trouble understanding it.
If I have trusted you and look at page 4 instead, then I would have made another different argument...
Mikrotherion wrote
The inability to correctly use an if-clause aside, you seem to have trusted me, then realized it was the wrong page and then went looking for the correct one. Well done.
Your inability to tell whether a sentences is wrong or not is what amazes me. (Hint: There is nothing wrong with that sentences that I made so your argument above is a cheap and desperate rubbish.)
Your sentence, "The inability to correctly use an if-clause aside, you seem to have trusted me, then realized it was the wrong page and then went looking for the correct one." is a perfect example of broken English. Well done in providing me a real and live example LMAO.....lolololol..
Mikrotherion wrote
No, not just because I say so, but to show that the claim you made was not empty. However, I'll spare you the work and just post an example of one of your threads that I did not post in:
https://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/1912345/page/1#p14556827
Nope, that was thread asking for help and its not under general discussion whereby people are really discussing. Try harder again.
Mikrotherion wrote
There were no "hidden provoking comments or arguments" in my post. I know this because I wrote it and did not hide anything in it.
Yes there is "hidden provoking comments or arguments" in your post. I know this because I am the who who receives it and interprets it. I have already explained above.
Mikrotherion wrote
Erm... no, it is not obvious, because I did not imply what you said was wrong. You are mistaken there. Thus you have no reason to perceive it a a direct challenge.
Tell you what, I think you took offense not because of what was said, but because of who said it (me).
I shall cut-and-paste again because you kept repeating the same thing. Btw, YOU are the one mistaken here and the one who misunderstood.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
As I have mentioned it time and time and time AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIn... The reason why i felt that your comments was offending was because you intentionally came to this thread (just right before the argument you started against me in another thread) and says that it is "ok" to post things you like for the lab in a thread that I have specifically made for "HATE" for the lab. This directly is in conflict with the topic of discussion and also indirectly encourages people to post "likes" for lab because someone had said it is "ok". This will over-writes the entire purpose of the thread, due to your post.
I see you as someone who do not understand what the topic is about or you lack the intelligence to make relevant and/or intelligent comments.
Get the idea now or it is it too difficult for you to understand?
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Mikrotherion wrote
What, again? I did say "You can come here and post... " because I have no power (you admitted that, you even said it was common knowledge) to forbid adghar to come and post his irrelevant stuff and directly afterwards, in the same sentence told him that he should not be surprised that people might find that irrelevant.
What rubbish are you saying again? Refer to the explanation directly above it.
Mikrotherion wrote
Just think this through. You're head of a state, some other head of state says something you for some reason take offense at and then refuse to accept that you mistakenly took offense at it, that there was nothing to be upset about (other perhaps than that you normally don't get along all to well with that other political leader).... what might sooner or later happen between such two states?
Just lmao at your comments. Fact >>> you misinterpreted my usage of the word "attack on argument" and thus, associates it with "WAR" as part of your supporting argument due to your language incompetence. Now you're creating another rubbish comment to make it look like the fault lies with me. Well done.
Mikrotherion wrote
Yes, I know what you wrote. So you took offense at my post and I explained why there was none to be taken, which you persistently refuse to accept. You were offended because you thought I was implying you were wrong. I was not. End of story.
No, you don't know what I wrote. In case you don't know what I am saying, please go and refer that again. It's so tiring to explain to someone who consistently pretends he "understands" and yet he says "he do not understand" thereafter (as shown and as proven above) You are the one who persistently refuse to listen to my explanation on why i took offense on page 7 and yet when i said the same thing on page 9, you finally said you "understand" my explanation in page 9. The funny thing is that I have said the same thing on page 7, which was way before page 9, yet you do not understand it until i repeated it again on page 9 (slight differences) and then FINALLY you understand it. This really makes you look like a TOTAL JOKE. End of story.
And btw the sugar-coating habit of yours is really disgraceful. In this case, clearly you are the one who refuse to read or have selective reading problems in page 7 and yet you replied in a manner which you "sugar-coated" of course, to make it seemed that the fault lies with me.
Mikrotherion wrote
I understood
that you took it as a direct attack at your arguments, not
why, since I was agreeing with you on adghar's post being irrelevant.
Please, no more lies and excuses. Be man enough to admit your lies when it is caught red handed.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
https://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/1912554/page/10 >>>>>
YoursTruly86 wrote:
And you made a post saying that it is "ok" to post that you like the labs which totally implies that I am wrong and I saw it as a direct attack on my arguments.
Mikrotherion wrote
I get that now.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Mikrotherion wrote
No, I won't add anything. I admitted my mistake, more than once already.
Have you admitted that your taking offense at my post was a mistake, because there was nothing to take offense at and that you obviously misunderstood? No. You're just repeating ad nauseam that you thought I was attacking you because I wrote that it was OK to post here if you liked the lab. And I did not even write exactly that. I wrote that "you can of course come here and state that you have no reasons (as you did), but you should not be surprised that people might find that irrelevant." And I already explained that I could barely write "You cannot come here...", because I have no power here to tell people where they can and where they cannot post.
You took that as me saying: "Yes, it's totally OK that you post your irrelevant stuff here. Please more of that, let's trash YoursTruly86's thread."
So what I said, in other words, would be: "Your post is indeed irrelevant, just look at the topic title, which is "Post your reason why you hate doing labs". It is fine if you like the lab, good for you, and I can't stop you from coming here and posting this irrelevant shit, but keep in mind that it is irrelevant and people might call you out on it."
If you misunderstand that as an invitation to come here and post "I love the lab.", that is regrettable, but language can lead to misunderstandings. If after my explanation that there was no implied, hidden or whatever criticism of your arguments in my post, you still refuse to accept it and go on about wrong page numbers, stuff from other threads and so on, you just can't be helped.
LOl-ed at your lies again. FYI, you admitted your real actual mistake only once, but only through persistent arguments from me. I shall cut and paste my explanation from above and bring it here again since you like to repeat the same old excuses. I have already explained time and time again why i am offended by your comments but you simply refuse to listen and if you still think that "there is nothing to take offense at" then that's your own opinion whereas I have my own so quit saying that "there is nothing to take offense" and imply that you are always right.
One more thing, if you have admitted that you understood already then please be man enough to admit it truthfully. It's so sickening to communicate with someone who claims that he had "understood" something then thereafter, claims that he "did not understand" it AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN and thus having me to repeat the same old thing AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
You kept saying that you know the meaning of "logical fallcies" YET you made the wrong and irrelevant arguments to support your comments > as seen and as proven.
Now when your ignorance is exposed for talking big, you tried to sugar coat that shame by saying ,"I quoted one of your posts and tried (and failed) to make a joke of it." but in actual fact is that you tried to make arguments based on the topic "logical fallacies" and made comments that were awfully irrelevant that it seems fking crystal clear that you do not know any shit about the topic. You made yourself looked like a total joke.
It was only when you are persistently reminded that you are sugar coating your words that you finally gave up and said , " You want me to admit it again? Fine, I tried to make a joke with your post and turns out the joke's on me."
Now compare these 2 sentences
"I quoted one of your posts and tried (and failed) to make a joke of it."
"I tried to make a joke with your post and turns out the joke's on me."
BOTH HAVE TOTALLY DIFFERENT MEANINGS.
The first one is a sugar coated version which simply means that you tried using my quotes and tried to make a joke out of it but failed. There is no indication/suggestion of your foolishness for talking big on a topic which you are unsure of.
The second one means that you tried to sabotage my post by trying to make it as if what I am saying is a joke but ended up becoming the joke itself. There is an indication/suggestion of your foolishness for talking big.
See the difference now or is it too hard for you to understand?
Because of your REFUSAL to admit the real actual truth by sugar-coating it so much to the extend that the entire meaning of the sentences changed and your shame concealed, that is why I have no choice but to keep on arguing about it until you gave up and made a slight un-distorted version of the truth. Not because I do not understand your words or tenses that you have admitted, but because whatever you have admitted is shit and a sugar coated version of the truth. That is why I have to repeatedly say it.
You should have said that , "I tried to make a joke with your post and turns out the joke's on me due to my ignorance". That would be a more truthful representation
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Mikrotherion wrote
Wrong.
Nope, you're wrong. Sugar coating + hypocrisy(and many more) habits is in the blood, can never be changed.
Mikrotherion wrote
You say that a lot, can you prove it?
Sure of course, but please don't try to deny it because you yourself has admitted that you made a mistake. ] In that thread mentioned below, clearly someone talk big about and make irrelevant supporting comments/arguments about a certain topic when he know shit about it and ends up admitting his mistakes reluctantly and dishonestly
https://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/1911005/page/6
Mikrotherion wrote
I was unaware of the second. We live and learn. >>>>>sounds familiar? I bet not since somebody has a history of conceding then denying it time and time again.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Mikrotherion wrote
Well, that is true. However, have you not repeatedly criticized my English, yet your own use of language is far from perfect. Have you not failed to understand "You don't say!" and "I hear you!", very common phrases? Have you not shown a certain lack of grasp of English when you used wrong tenses and wrong spelling?
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
If that is true then shut it. You ain't qualified educate people on things which you are unsure of, especially if you have a history of talking rubbish so quit taking big ty. It's damn disgraceful. Nope, i agree that My English is far from perfect but yours is horrible. Its so terrible that you often misunderstood what people wrote and thus, used the wrong choice of words to convey your intentions which resulted in more confusion. Please don't resort to low and underhand lies please. I I did not misunderstood the phrase "I hear you" so please for goodness sake, show some integrity (if you have).
BTW wrong spellings and tenses are small minor mistakes that is inevitable in long essays, but it's too complicated for you to understand. Some people do a spell check some do not, too hard for you to understand? The lowest level of language proficiency is the ability to interpret shit, so if he interprets shit, then naturally he will say shit. Idioms on the other hand are much more complicated in the sense that there is simply too many, not even the best English person knows every single fking English idioms available. Unfortunately, its too hard for you to understand.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
First of all I would like to remind you that the phrase , " You don't say!" is an idiom and not a commonly used one since the phrase "Oh really?" would have easily and conveniently replaces it.
And I would like to remind you that not every English speaking people knows the meaning of every IDIOMS available, especially idioms which are uncommonly used.
Thus, it is understandable to make that mistake but unfortunately, it's simply too complicated for you to understand.
Grading a person's English proficiency based based on idioms and using it as a criteria just goes to show how "intelligent" you are. At least I grade your proficiency based on simple words such as "attack" and your talking big rubbish.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Mikrotherion wrote
Well, of course, it would have to be an impartial arbiter. However, I feel that you would call anyone agreeing with me one of my friends.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Nope. Tha's your opinion, not a fact and so learn to differentiate it.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Mikrotherion wrote
No, but I do have a ThinkPad. I also have a rather thick skin, yes. I don't take offense as easily as some other people.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Do you know that some people have such a thick skin that he became so shameless as to distort the truth? Remember that sugar-coating guy?
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Mikrotherion wrote
No, I am not threatening you. I said I wouldn't (would not) punch, kill (or try to) or do anything that could be associated with hate.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Can't you tell that's sarcasm? I think the English dictionary is to be blamed LOLOLOL.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Mikrotherion wrote
You're reading way too much into the difference of wording here. But it seems to give you some sort of satisfaction to quote this as often as you can. Both sentences have not entirely different meanings.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Nope. You are the one who refused to admit the truth. See below for explanation.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
You kept saying that you know the meaning of "logical fallcies" YET you made the wrong and irrelevant arguments to support your comments > as seen and as proven.
Now when your ignorance is exposed for talking big, you tried to sugar coat that shame by saying ,"I quoted one of your posts and tried (and failed) to make a joke of it." but in actual fact is that you tried to make arguments based on the topic "logical fallacies" and made comments that were awfully irrelevant that it seems fking crystal clear that you do not know any shit about the topic. You made yourself looked like a total joke.
It was only when you are persistently reminded that you are sugar coating your words that you finally gave up and said , " You want me to admit it again? Fine, I tried to make a joke with your post and turns out the joke's on me."
Now compare these 2 sentences
"I quoted one of your posts and tried (and failed) to make a joke of it."
"I tried to make a joke with your post and turns out the joke's on me."
BOTH HAVE TOTALLY DIFFERENT MEANINGS.
The first one is a sugar coated version which simply means that you tried using my quotes and tried to make a joke out of it but failed. There is no indication/suggestion of your foolishness for talking big on a topic which you are unsure of.
The second one means that you tried to sabotage my post by trying to make it as if what I am saying is a joke by ended up becoming the joke itself. There is an indication/suggestion of your foolishness for talking big.
See the difference now or is it too hard for you to understand?
Because of your REFUSAL to admit the real actual truth by sugar-coating it so much to the extend that the entire meaning of the sentences changed and your shame concealed, that is why I have no choice but to keep on arguing about it until you gave up and made a slight un-distorted version of the truth. Not because I do not understand your words or tenses that you have admitted, but because whatever you have admitted is shit and a sugar coated version of the truth. That is why I have to repeatedly say it.
You should have said that , "I tried to make a joke with your post and turns out the joke's on me due to my ignorance". That would be a more truthful representation
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
My replies in bold. I apologized for the format because I am unable to un-bold that guy's argument.
