4 ms·

> I wasn't talking in that context, though. Yes, you were, whether you acknowledge it or not. You can't just ignore the existing context and expect everyone to

• DonHopkins 4y ago
  Although his rhetorical gymnastics attempting to dodge and avoid answering those obvious questions are certainly telling and amusing, and he helps make your point by ignoring the context and not being willing to address your straightforward questions.
• robertlagrant 4y ago
  I didn't create a new context; doing so would not have been the height of hubris; and I didn't expect people to follow me, other than in the most basic (or so I thought) comprehension sense. You and DonHopkins are the only ones behaving badly enough to be accused of annihilating curious conversation. My few words cannot be accused of that. I have seen the guidelines, and nowhere do I see DonHopkins' mouth-frothing or your arbitrary rule-setting there. I appreciate that now you've read my comment in its correct context (that of the previous comment) you understand it and aren't trying to say anything in response other than some brand new iron laws of conversation and DonHopkins' gossipy nastiness, as that hopefully means you've at least accepted it for what it is. A simple truthful statement, designed to modify the predecessor which was not, in my opinion, sufficiently caveated.