5 ms·

I did not make a mistake. I stand by my opinion as well as the accompanying rationale for making my conclusion. Here's the anatomy of your initial comment: 1.

I did not make a mistake. I stand by my opinion as well as the accompanying rationale for making my conclusion. Here's the anatomy of your initial comment: 1. Statement and rhetorical question echoing the article's main message 2. A conclusion using a summary of the article. The article only has one main conclusion. Was that comment not an opinion or are you making comments that article summary bots make? Forgive me for making an incorrect assumption.

the_af 8y ago
Yes, you made a mistake. No, I do not forgive you for jumping to conclusions, and no, I didn't give any opinion in my initial post or echo the main point of an article with many points. When asked, I told you what I found interesting about the article and whether I found the cost Jackie paid too high (I do). Did you even wonder whether I've read the autobiography the author of the piece is commenting on? (no, I have not). Then how on earth could I hold his same opinion? Thinking that an incomplete summary of something means agreeing with it is such a naive assumption it's funny. Let it go. You're wrong. Or you can pretend my opinion is what you "feel" it must be, whatever.
- chaostheory 8y ago
  > and whether I found the cost Jackie paid too high (I do). Then I clearly didn't make a mistake. This is the article's core idea and I disagree with it for reasons that I've already outlined in my previous comments.
  - the_af 8y ago
    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.
    - chaostheory 8y ago
      > 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 8y ago
        > "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 8y ago
        > 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

the_af 8y ago

Yes, you made a mistake. No, I do not forgive you for jumping to conclusions, and no, I didn't give any opinion in my initial post or echo the main point of an article with many points. When asked, I told you what I found interesting about the article and whether I found the cost Jackie paid too high (I do). Did you even wonder whether I've read the autobiography the author of the piece is commenting on? (no, I have not). Then how on earth could I hold his same opinion? Thinking that an incomplete summary of something means agreeing with it is such a naive assumption it's funny. Let it go. You're wrong. Or you can pretend my opinion is what you "feel" it must be, whatever.

chaostheory 8y ago
> and whether I found the cost Jackie paid too high (I do). Then I clearly didn't make a mistake. This is the article's core idea and I disagree with it for reasons that I've already outlined in my previous comments.
- the_af 8y ago
  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.
  - chaostheory 8y ago
    > 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 8y ago
      > "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 8y ago
        > 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