Wrong, Sean.

You seem to have difficulty with basic context, as the exchange above shows. The problems in communicating over the internet pale in comparison to that.

Misunderstandings can occur, but you are just fucking stupid.

For instance…

‘If you can do X, then I should be able to do Y.’

When someone says something like that, they are not saying you can’t do X. They are saying they can do Y.

When you took my statement and claimed I said you couldn’t do X, I figured you were lying. It was the most logical conclusion.

Turns out, you just lack basic reading comprehension.

Seriously. This is basic high school English level here. Not even high school, but remedial high school.

But you don’t see it as a problem. You think you are right, and I’m just an asshole. And you will continue to make this mistake in the future, which is sad.

Translation: You don’t acknowledge my infallibility so contrary to what I just implied don’t even try to suggest misunderstandings can occur.

Sean: “Clearly.”

For you it doesn’t matter.

Clearly.

It is the internet. That does impede communication sometimes.

Sean D. Martin: “Well, yeah. If you tell me I’m not allowed to do something I believe I am allowed to do, I’m going to point out that I am allowed to do it.”

Oh my god! Oh my god! Oh my god!

You are not lying; you’re stupid. It all makes sense now.

You actually don’t know what I’m saying. You actually don’t understand the words I’m using in the order I’m using them.

It all makes fucking sense.

You don’t get that cutting a sentence in half can change the meaning. So of course you can’t see how taking a quote out of context would be lying, because you don’t have the ability to comprehend context.

Okay.

Wow.

I’m glad we’ve figured that out.

And to think, all this time I thought it was intentional.

2.) See point one.

Okay, then. My bad. Hard to tell sometimes.

Well, yeah. If you tell me I’m not allowed to do something I believe I am allowed to do, I’m going to point out that I am allowed to do it.

The only reason to say you were allowed to speculate, was if I said you were not allowed to speculate.

Sean: “Nope. At best you inferred that. My reply said only that yes, I was allowed to speculate.”

Bullshit. The only reason to say you were allowed to speculate, was if I said you were not allowed to speculate. You are just trying to weasel out of it. And you are doing a bad job of it.

My point was the apparent double standard. We can argue whether or not there was a double-standard, but you never addressed it. You completely ignored that point in your reply.

“Which is why I actually provided a link. You, for example, have made reference to something I said in another thread and brought the discussion over here. Referring to something I wrote out of context, as it were.”

Buy a fucking dictionary. Or just look up the ‘context’ on any number of online dictionaries.

You can’t possible be this fucking stupid.

This is clearly wrong. You did it intentionally, so the only explanation is you lied, or you are fucking stupid

“You questioned the motives of the person who called child welfare, but you thought naming a kid Adolf Hitler was not worthy of any further investigation.” That’s right. I questioned the motives of one person and I don’t think naming a kid Adolf Hitler is grounds for starting an investigation. Note, those are actually two different things.

Your original sentence: “So you are allowed to speculate without any direct evidence, but naming a kid Unwanted would not be enough to warrant further investigation.” The first part is about speculating about a person’s motives, the second part is about calling for an investigation. Yuo might have a point if you’d said something like “So you are allowed to speculate without any direct evidence, but wondering why they’d name a kid Unwanted would not be enough to warrant further investigation.”

“Your response implied that I said you were not allowed to question the motive of the person who called child welfare.”
Nope. At best you inferred that. My reply said only that yes, I was allowed to speculate.

“You did it intentionally”
Again, nope. No more than you intentionally misread it so you could interpret it as an attack and send the conversation off on this tangent rather than respond to any point originally made. Is that what you intended?

CSS: Are you saying it is my fault for taking it personally when you lie about what I said?

Thank you for actually asking what I meant. That’s an appreciated change of pace.

Now, since you notice so carefully when I haven’t quoted the entirety of a comment, perhaps you’ll go back and look at exactly what I was responding to and what I left off. Specifically: “And I will continue to take it personally when people say one thing and mean another.” I (yes, intentionally. You got me.) left off your next sentence because I did NOT object to your taking it personally “when people lie about what I say.” I was only suggesting you shouldn’t take comments that aren’t directed at you personally.

CSS: Are you incapable of telling the truth? This is another fucking misquote.

Remember, context matters.

Which is why I actually provided a link. You, for example, have made reference to something I said in another thread and brought the discussion over here. Referring to something I wrote out of context, as it were.
When I referenced your comments from another thread I provided a link, inviting anyone who wants to easily see your full comments in their complete context.

I do this, of course, so that I can completely misrepresent you. [/sarcasm]

Sean D. Martin says: “C, I didn’t pretend the second half didn’t exist. It was right there, a whopping 10 cm away from my response to it.”

Yes. You. Did.

Your response made no sense if the second half existed, therefore, you pretended it didn’t exist.

How can you not understand this?

“Here, for example, you make two claims. I want to respond specifically to the first one. Could I quote just that claim, or do I have to include the whole sentence to avoid being accused of misrepresenting your words? Is a sentence sufficient, or would I have to quote an entire paragraph? The entire original posting?”

If you edit the quote to change the context and that changes the meaning of what I said, then it is a lie.

For instance, in the post I was talking about, I was questioning your apparent double-standard. You questioned the motives of the person who called child welfare, but you thought naming a kid Adolf Hitler was not worthy of any further investigation.

Your response implied that I said you were not allowed to question the motive of the person who called child welfare.

This is clearly wrong. You did it intentionally, so the only explanation is you lied, or you are fucking stupid.

If you can’t understand this, don’t respond at all, because you will add nothing to the debate.

Me: “And I will continue to take it personally when people say one thing and mean another.”

Sean: “Perhaps you shouldn’t take so many things personally.”

Are you saying it is my fault for taking it personally when you lie about what I said?

Me: “say what they mean and mean what they say”

Sean: “as long as it isn’t an opinion, right?”

Are you incapable of telling the truth? This is another fucking misquote.

Remember, context matters.

And you guys wonder why I swear so much.

“How the fuck did you think that was a serious question?”
But he did. Perhaps that says something about the impression you give people.

It’s a sad day when that becomes an unpopular opinion.

“And I will continue to take it personally when people say one thing and mean another.”
Perhaps you shouldn’t take so many things personally.

“say what they mean and mean what they say” as long as it isn’t an opinion, right? Because opinions aren’t allowed and “when it comes to debates like this, opinions are meaningless.“

C, I didn’t pretend the second half didn’t exist. It was right there, a whopping 10 cm away from my response to it.

Here, for example, you make two claims. I want to respond specifically to the first one. Could I quote just that claim, or do I have to include the whole sentence to avoid being accused of misrepresenting your words? Is a sentence sufficient, or would I have to quote an entire paragraph? The entire original posting?

Perhaps I should do that from now on where you’re concerned so you won’t be able to go off on tangents about how you’re being unfairly attacked and being misrepresented rather than respond to the point actually being made. It would make it more difficult to know exactly what in the original posting I was responding to, but anything I can do to help you not feel like a victim.

How the fuck did you think that was a serious question?

And you guys wonder why I swear so much.

“Maybe you should take a time out from here for a couple of days, CS. I love ya, man, but some of us are getting concerned. I think you take some of the things said here WAY too personally. I think we can all agree that just about everything posted here that doesn’t have a fucking hyperlink should be considered an opinion.”

No. Fuck no.

I will continue to demand people say what they mean and mean what they say. And I will continue to take it personally when people say one thing and mean another. I will continue to take it personally when people lie about what I say.

I will continue to do this, because the truth matters. Accuracy matters.

It’s a sad day when that becomes an unpopular opinion.

Sean D. Martin: “Actually, it’s that you attribute evil intent to people you disagree with and tend to not apply the same standards to yourself.”

Sean, you cut a sentence in half and pretended the other half didn’t exist while using the first half to attack me.

How else should I interpret that?

Either you did it intentionally to attack me.
Or you are functionally illiterate.

Or a combination of the two.

Two point…

1.) I WAS FUCKING JOKING!

2.) See point one.

What he said.