[dylan604]

The niche was for the people using YT to learn to play a song. You’re now applying to something else, so that’s a bit of goal post moving.

Also, your use of need is odd as well, and seem to have convinced yourself that the world is wrong and only you’re right. If it needed, the creators would have made it that way

[perching_aix]

> Also, your use of need is odd as well, and seem to have convinced yourself that the world is wrong and only you’re right. If it needed, the creators would have made it that way

It's called having personal experiences and an opinion. You should try them sometime. It's almost as if appropriate tempo was in the "eye" of the "viewer", and so I was very clearly not suggesting my needs and essentials are universal objective truths in the first place. Getting extremely tired of having to insert "I think", "I believe", "in my opinion" to signal subjectivity in what - I think - are ostensibly subjective contexts, just so that I can avoid subsequent bikeshedding like this.

> You’re now applying to something else, so that’s a bit of goal post moving.

This will be crazy I know, but instead of this delightfully malice-assuming explanation, I simply missed the words where they said "music practice". Didn't help that "timestretch for music practice" is not a feature of YouTube, only timestretch is (as part of the playback rate adjustment feature), so when you were (according to my personal impression of the wording of your previous comment) generally addressing the feature, I replied in kind.

If I was being extra prickly, I'd accuse you of intentionally writing in a way so that you could accuse me of strawmanning you later (goalpost moving is a very loose fit here) for an easy dunk, but of course as someone who reaches for fallacies immediately, you wouldn't do that, right?

This is what distrust sown between people, as well as just plain not being able to know your discussion partner looks like. It's been increasingly frustrating me, and it looks like it's having an effect on you too.

[dylan604]

> If I was being extra prickly, I'd accuse you of intentionally writing in a way so that you could accuse me of strawmanning you later

That’s the most bizarre comment I think I’ve ever seen. You didn’t have to reply to my comment. You’re now saying that I assume that the reading comprehension of everyone is so bad that I make comments specifically as gotchas. WTF is that logic? People that post comments in threads without taking the whole thread into consideration are like people that butt their way into a conversation based on the last sentence heard. It never goes well. It’s called social etiquette.

Just admit you didn’t read the full thread and that based on now understanding the full context of the conversation that your comment is out of place and have a nice day

[perching_aix]

It's also basic etiquette to not assume malice or that the other party is lying, but you explicitly and proudly continue to fail at that. So it's a bit tough for me to accept criticism from you regarding this.

> the reading comprehension of everyone is so bad

No, I am not saying this. This is just your headcanon, it is not even a remotely necessary presumption to have.

> You didn’t have to reply to my comment.

I felt compelled to after being told that I'm "moving goalposts". Obviously. Again, a subjectively perceived need.

> based on now understanding the full context of the conversation that your comment is out of place and have a nice day

Even with the additional context your original comment still rings unreasonable and self-absorbed. It is true however that I do not need you to explain why anymore. Have a nice day indeed.