Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="El Mahdi" data-source="post: 6006477" data-attributes="member: 59506">No he wasn't, and neither are you.&nbsp; I responded to what was written and the way it was written, without attempting to divine intention.&nbsp; That is not a Strawman.&nbsp; I believe you're using the &quot;Strawman&quot; defense as a means to avoid honestly and critically evaluating your manner of communication.&nbsp; I'm not denying that your intention is what you and he are now saying, but that's not the way it was originally presented.&nbsp; The way it was presented, the &quot;dropping off the face of the earth&quot; was a factor.&nbsp; But adding a final and seperate paragraph that focused on the &quot;preferring a machine to you&quot; aspect, made it the crux of your statement.&nbsp; It highlighted that aspect above all other factors.&nbsp; Also, being upset that someone dropped off the face of the earth, and being upset that someone prefers a machine to you are very distinctly different things.&nbsp; Yes they can contribute to eachother, but both can also exist independently.&nbsp; The way you presented it did not imply or establish a contributing link.&nbsp;The failure in communication was yours.&nbsp; My previous posts still apply to what you actually posted.&nbsp; However, they do not completely apply in light of your clarification.&nbsp;But my main point is still valid.&nbsp; No one is qualified to pass judgement or determine what is a &quot;justified&quot; response in these situations (feeling insulted).&nbsp; And claiming one is justified in a personal situation, but others are not justified in their situations, is at the least insensitive, and likely exhibiting at least some hypocrisy.&nbsp;<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="El Mahdi, post: 6006477, member: 59506"] No he wasn't, and neither are you. I responded to what was written and the way it was written, without attempting to divine intention. That is not a Strawman. I believe you're using the "Strawman" defense as a means to avoid honestly and critically evaluating your manner of communication. I'm not denying that your intention is what you and he are now saying, but that's not the way it was originally presented. The way it was presented, the [I]"dropping off the face of the earth"[/I] was a factor. But adding a final and seperate paragraph that focused on the [I]"preferring a machine to you"[/I] aspect, made it the crux of your statement. It highlighted that aspect above all other factors. Also, being upset that someone dropped off the face of the earth, and being upset that someone prefers a machine to you are very distinctly different things. Yes they can contribute to eachother, but both can also exist independently. The way you presented it did not imply or establish a contributing link. The failure in communication was yours. My previous posts still apply to what you actually posted. However, they do not completely apply in light of your clarification. But my main point is still valid. No one is qualified to pass judgement or determine what is a "justified" response in these situations (feeling insulted). And claiming one is justified in a personal situation, but others are not justified in their situations, is at the least insensitive, and likely exhibiting at least some hypocrisy. :) [/QUOTE]

Verification