>How is this not a contradiction? They're not contorting their words, they're just restating them with subtle changes to make it "correct". What? "Contorting s

>How is this not a contradiction? They're not contorting their words, they're just restating them with subtle changes to make it "correct". What? "Contorting someones words" is said when someone changes what somebody said to make it appear as if they meant something else. Not when someone merely expresses a different opinion, as their own, using some part of the other's wording. >Yes, and do you not see how clapping back by "cleverly" rewriting someone words would come across as incredibly annoying? No. That's a you problem. And even describing it as "rewriting someone words" would be a stretch. They merely used the same noun (which they need to, as they speak about the same thing), and contended that the opposite is true: "I think the increasingly widespread attitude that only open source software is good and trustworthy increasingly annoying and problematic" "Software being open source almost always makes it more trustworthy, and I'm glad that more people are picking up on this over time". The only annoying comment I see in the whole exchange is yours. >People getting hostile in response to hostility? Oh no, not the irony?! The only hostility was in your mind, based on your premise that responding by reusing some of the same wording is "hostile".