[the_af]

Yes you did, because that's not the article's core idea (which is more focused on Jackie's refusal to say more about his past hardships, what the article calls his "blindspot" [1]), and it says nothing about whether I agree with the article.

Did you wonder why I even felt the need to write a summary? Why would I need to, if one could simply just read TFA? It's because at the time I posted, most people were commenting stuff like "I love Jackie Chan's movies, Rush Hour is cool!", which seemed to me to be entirely off-topic and likely written by people who hadn't bothered to read the article. So I summarized one of the ideas of the article -- the one I thought was worth discussing -- in hopes of getting the discussion back on track.

I succeeded. I just didn't expect your extremely literal and hilariously childlike interpretation of my post.

[1] Please don't debate this point with me as if it was mine. I know it's confusing because the words are there in my post, but that's not magic: it's called "summarizing what someone else said" -- trust me! If you disagree with it, I don't know, write the author an angry email.

[the_af]

@chaostheory

> Unless you're a summary bot, most people inject their opinion when summarizing an article.

That's not the purpose of a summary. My opinion is that it was "interesting" and wanted to move the conversation back on track, away from Jackie Chan's martial abilities and back on the subject of the submitted article.

> ok, let's pretend you didn't agree with article. It doesn't take away from the fact that my comments just strongly disagreed with the idea of Jackie "paying too high a price for success"

I've no problem with that. I can understand your disagreement. As I said, I agreed with parts of the article, disagreed with others, found other parts irrelevant, and found some interesting -- as in "meriting further discussion".

Do you see that I'm upset not about whether we disagree on Jackie Chan's life (why would that bother me?) but because you built a nice strawman, lumping my opinion with that of the author as if we were of a single mind, and proceeded to attack that? It's offensive and it's usually an underhanded debate tactic.

Had you answered "I disagree with the author because <reasons>", I wouldn't have had any problem. Instead, you wrote "I'm not sure what point you and the author are trying to make". I'm willing to believe that was a mistake, if you'll simply say "ok, I made a mistake. I was in disagreement with the author."

[chaostheory]

> nstead, you wrote "I'm not sure what point you and the author are trying to make". I'm willing to believe that was a mistake, if you'll simply say "ok, I made a mistake. I was in disagreement with the author."

1. I am not mistaken. Your opinion of Jackie Chan "paying too high of a price" for his fame is an idea that the author shares. It is literally written throughout the article that you summarized. It's effectively part of your summary.

2. Even if the first point wasn't true, and you have the unlikely and uncommon habit of quoting things that you have no opinion over; it doesn't matter. I was still arguing against your opinion of Chan paying a high price for fame. Your focus on whether or not the author had the same idea serves as a distraction from you either not being able to come up with an effective counter argument, or maybe even changing your opinion since it seems like you are distancing yourself from it.

"I'm not sure what point you are trying to make"

Happy?

[chaostheory]

> Did you wonder why I even felt the need to write a summary? Why would I need to, if one could simply just read TFA?

Unless you're a summary bot, most people inject their opinion when summarizing an article. When they disagree, they will dispute points in that summary. When there's no dispute, such as your case, it's implicit that you're agreeing with the article's core ideas that you've summarized. It's as obvious and routine as a rhetorical question.

ok, let's pretend you didn't agree with article. It doesn't take away from the fact that my comments just strongly disagreed with the idea of Jackie "paying too high a price for success", which what you've espoused in your comments. (It is still one of the core messages of the article, in addition to Jackie's subsequent 'apathy'.)

[the_af]

> "I'm not sure what point you are trying to make"

> Happy?

No, I'm not happy. Since I know you understand the definition of "summary" (and, if in doubt of why I felt the need to summarize, you had my explanation of the context a few posts above, and you consistently ignored it), I can only assume you're trolling.

> Your focus on whether or not the author had the same idea serves as a distraction from you either not being able to come up with an effective counter argument

A counterargument to what!? You're demented.

I'm upset I wasted my time with a troll. I wish there was a way to report you.

Goodbye.

[chaostheory]

> A counterargument to what!? You're demented.

My arguments against your opinion that Jack Chan paid too high of a cost for his success: "whether I found the cost Jackie paid too high (I do)." I've mentioned it in my last comment as well as previous ones. it also seems that you've mistakenly replied to my earlier comment which breaks the thread

> No, I'm not happy. Since I know you understand the definition of "summary"

The last lines of my previous comment just addressed your fixation that your opinion wasn't shared by the article, so I made a point of focusing on what you admitted was your opinion (even though the article does agree with it) i.e. I'm not talking to the author about his opinions. I'm talking to you about yours.

You accusing me of being a troll is just yet another distraction from the core idea in our debate. The irony with your accusation is that I stay focused in attacking your ideas, while you started attacking me as an individual