Comments by "ncwordman" (@ncwordman) on "Fox News Starts Pretending They Never Said It" video.
-
1
-
@nostrum6410 "you forgot about the directly refuting his points part of the definition...."
The definition of what? Whataboutism? I'm having trouble following you.
"but nice try."
I didn't have to try. I pointed out that what you did and said is a known logical fallacy:
"what about david lying?"
You didn't even try to disguise it, by not using "what about."
"also clearly missed the point that it was obviously a joke"
Your sentence structure makes it very difficult for me to understand you: lack of capitalization, punctuation, or a definite, clear subject. I take it you mean that I (or you, in the case of your sentence) clearly missed the point: That point being that it was a "joke."
If that was the point, then I did obviously, clearly miss it. What joke? Do you mean that you don't believe David is lying? A joke isn't stating the opposite of what is true, then, when people call you on it, saying it was a joke. That's called "irony."
So you were being ironic?
1
-
@nostrum6410 "Triggered" is a word that should be reserved for people suffering PTSD. You did not trigger me. I guess we could say, at best, that you trolled me. Congrats.
"It was intentionally ironic which can often be funny."
Thank you for using some punctuation. I really appreciate it. So it was deliberately ironic? To what end? How? At the end of this post, you wrote:
"I have directly refuted davids points on many other comments"
Though you stop using punctuation again, I take it that you mean your ironic post was meant to refute David's point? How? What point? And what other points do you believe you've refuted? Are you here just to point out how David is wrong, by not actually pointing out anything?
"You define a word and when i add to your definition you cant figure out what definition im referring to?"
Let me break this down for you. We're communicating via textual messages. I glean your meaning only from what you write; I cannot see or hear you.
I'll show you the sentence in question:
"you forgot about the directly refuting his points part of the definition...."
You wrote, "you forgot about THE directly refuting...." This should have been a proper noun, or at least a pronoun: I, me, you, etc. And "his points": Whose? David's? If you don't use a proper noun (a name), then a pronoun is just confusing; and using "the," in place of either proper- or pro-noun, is just nonsensical. What did you refute with that original sentence: "what about david lying?" Nothing. Is that how your other refutations go?
And then this is related to me pointing out the whataboutism? How? You do not elaborate. And if you interpret the length of my responses being in proportion to you triggering me, it's not. It takes this long to point out at least some of what you're writing, and my response to it, or your next response. I'm trying to be clear. You are anything but clear in these comments, at least to me.
1
-
@nostrum6410 "ya I clearly triggered you, and again that wasn't my intention. however, your grammar nazing seems to be clearly trolling"
Why is it so necessary to believe that you triggered me? You didn't say. You also didn't say how I was triggered, or how I revealed to you that I was triggered. Is it that, besides me being triggered, which would indicate some irrationality on my part (which, again, you gave no explanation for), you would otherwise have to confront that I didn't understand, at all, what you're trying to communicate; and that my inability to make heads or tails of your point had nothing to do with me, but with your inability to communicate it to me?
As your "triggering" me was not your intention, then my emphasis on semantics (and how we have only words on screen to understand each other, and how I'm unable to understand you), I did not intentionally try to troll you with an emphasis on grammar, as a means of clarification. I was trying to understand you.
I still don't get it. I still think your point is vague. And I conjecture that your blaming me for being a grammar nazi (when I was just asking for clarification, so we could communicate) is a convenient way for you to avoid the topic: which is also accomplished by whataboutism. Think of it, all this time, and we've said nothing. The whole point is lost.
However, I'm sitting here quarantined. And, being an avid writer, myself, and because I enjoy analyzing writing, especially unclear writing, you might interpret my interest, and my number of paragraphs as being "triggered." Sorry, chief. Nor am I trolling.
You're targeting me, personally; judging me, personally; and assuming a whole lot. On the other hand, I'm looking at your writing. I don't know you, and wouldn't presume to judge you. I just see what you wrote, and I'm trying to understand it.
But since we're making no headway, at all, I'll just declare you the victor of this debate. Why not?
1
-
@nostrum6410 I figured that's why you believed I was triggered, and so spoke to that in one of those paragraphs:
"However, I'm sitting here quarantined. And, being an avid writer, myself, and because I enjoy analyzing writing, especially unclear writing, you might interpret my interest, and my number of paragraphs as being "triggered." Sorry, chief. Nor am I trolling. "
I'm a writer. I sneeze seven paragraphs when I get out of bed in the morning. Ask yourself, what am I reacting to? And, what emotion constitutes my reaction? You're assuming, again, about me, personally. MY emotions. You don't know me. Okay? My writing is all you have. Is it overly emotional? Or is it grammar nazi? How can it be both?
1