| > you’re turning toward personal insults based on top of your own incorrect theorizing. I think it's pretty clear that I tried to phrase it as kindly as I possibly could. Not intended as an insult in the slightest, merely a purely subjective observation. You're welcome to disagree, even if you do seem very resistant to extending anyone else the same courtesy? > All of your comments here trying to rebut it have been moving the goalposts each time I point out where you got the facts wrong. I don't think I've moved the goalposts once. We're still on the original two claimed inconsistencies, neither of which I find inconsistent. You're framing this discussion as though it were me that were hellbent on attacking you (for some reason?). I would respectfully suggest that it seems to be you that is irrationally upset over someone not agreeing with you. > I don’t see any reason to continue trying to discuss anything Awesome. Have a good one! :) |
As an uninvolved reader in this thread, your phrasing was definitely done in a way that caused this response from him.
Not at all trying to be mean, and I'm fully aware that this comment I'm writing is also (knowingly) using phrasing which the previously mentioned NVC cautious from, but I only consider it something to be aware of - to understand interactions vs something to adhere to stringently.