3 ms·

That’s a wholly inadequate and inappropriate response to my post. I have only read the edited post and don’t know if in addition to the addendum he also edited

That’s a wholly inadequate and inappropriate response to my post. I have only read the edited post and don’t know if in addition to the addendum he also edited the original post. If that is the case then there may be context here I don’t have, so feel free to educate me there, but I stand by my interpretation of what I’ve read here. I think you might be confused and trying to make this personal between us doesn’t convince me otherwise.

dahart 2y ago
I’ve edited my post above, before I saw your reply. I’m not making anything personal here, I’m debating you. If you don’t like that, then don’t state your disagreement with me and invite argument. BTW, you lobbed an ad-hominem with “extremely ungenerous” which is why you got my retort that was edited out. Maybe you didn’t realize you were already making it personal yourself? Personally, I think you’re confused about the difference between rules and ethics. Yes, we’re talking about different sets of rules. But we have not been talking about different sets of ethics. The difference between a speedrunner’s shortcut being good and a marathoner’s shortcut being bad is rules, not ethics.
- cgriswald 2y ago
  You ignored the entire content of my post to make essentially a personal attack because you think someone recognizing that your interpretation of a post is ungenerous is ad hominem. I wasn’t making an argument. I was telling you what you’re arguing against isn’t what was said or at least wasn’t what was meant. Then you edited your post completely to essentially attack a point that wasn’t really mine, that you wouldn’t see the way it was actually meant, and that I was already conceding for expediency since you yourself claimed you didn’t understand. I posted to you because regardless of who posts you seem to not understand their point of view and want to “debate” about things they didn’t say or if they did say them they didn’t mean them the way you took them. You’re doing this in several response not just to me. But I’m sure it’s just because I don’t understand the intersection of rules, ethics, and morals. I’m just confused. Have a nice life.

dahart 2y ago

I’ve edited my post above, before I saw your reply. I’m not making anything personal here, I’m debating you. If you don’t like that, then don’t state your disagreement with me and invite argument. BTW, you lobbed an ad-hominem with “extremely ungenerous” which is why you got my retort that was edited out. Maybe you didn’t realize you were already making it personal yourself? Personally, I think you’re confused about the difference between rules and ethics. Yes, we’re talking about different sets of rules. But we have not been talking about different sets of ethics. The difference between a speedrunner’s shortcut being good and a marathoner’s shortcut being bad is rules, not ethics.

cgriswald 2y ago
You ignored the entire content of my post to make essentially a personal attack because you think someone recognizing that your interpretation of a post is ungenerous is ad hominem. I wasn’t making an argument. I was telling you what you’re arguing against isn’t what was said or at least wasn’t what was meant. Then you edited your post completely to essentially attack a point that wasn’t really mine, that you wouldn’t see the way it was actually meant, and that I was already conceding for expediency since you yourself claimed you didn’t understand. I posted to you because regardless of who posts you seem to not understand their point of view and want to “debate” about things they didn’t say or if they did say them they didn’t mean them the way you took them. You’re doing this in several response not just to me. But I’m sure it’s just because I don’t understand the intersection of rules, ethics, and morals. I’m just confused. Have a nice life.