[dullcrisp]

Sure, but the point of critical thinking club isn’t really its exclusivity. In this case if you don’t know which specific header this is parodying that’s completely understandable. But if you really think this is about computers stabbing people and can’t laugh at yourself about it when you find out that it isn’t then I don’t think we will be able to engage on this topic in a mutually rewarding manner.

[SilasX]

I don’t think it’s about computers stabbing people, but that’s not relevant. The issue is your willingness to keep people in the dark so you can feel good that you got a reference without it being explained.

[dullcrisp]

I wasn’t accusing you of not getting the joke, I was speaking in general. But thank you for demonstrating how it’s difficult to have a conversation with someone who takes everything literally.

[SilasX]

>I wasn’t accusing you of not getting the joke, I was speaking in general.

But you were -- you just hid it under a veneer of snark, innuendo, and plausible deniability so I'd be tainted by the implication, while still allowing you to (right on cue) insist that's not what you meant.

Maybe now you're starting to understand why ambiguity in writing is a double-edged sword. But then, if you were that conscientious, I wouldn't have to make the original point in the first place.

[dullcrisp]

If you actually got that from what I wrote I’d apologize but I don’t think you’re engaging in good faith.