3 ms·
> I would caution against being offended without confirming the intent and/meaning behind the statements. Which is why I merely replied with "I don't know why
by jjnoakes 10y ago
> I would caution against being offended without confirming the intent and/meaning behind the statements.
Which is why I merely replied with "I don't know why you think this has anything to do with lack of intelligence."
I could have said "you are wrong and it has nothing to do with lack of intelligence" (which is what I believe), or I could have gone further and said or implied I'm smarter than he is (which I didn't do, but which the original commenter said I did for some reason), but I didn't.
So I believe you are preaching to the choir here.
- kbenson 10y agoUnderstood. In that respect, it's unfortunate that your original reply happened on cursory review to match what the original comment was talking about in general, even if it didn't really in intent. Without that context, there would have been nothing for anyone to object to (or more accurately, misinterpret and call negative attention to).