Who is this person, and why do I care about them? And if they’re so important, and you’re so clever, why can’t you keep their name consistent in your own comment?
Edit: he’s the guy in the OP. Again, what does that really have to do with anything? A different person in the comment section said, “the founding fathers would still be horrified”. Why are you using someone else’s beliefs to justify your rude attitude toward someone who never even implied they share those beliefs?
why can’t you keep their name consistent in your own comment?
You seem confused. I referred to Ms. Crawford twice, and both times as ‘Ms. Crawford.’
Also, your edit is as confusing a jumble as I’ve ever read. I have no idea what you’re unhappy about.
Finally, I didn’t ‘assume’ anything. I’ve run across Ms. Crawford’s comments in the past, and happened to remember the name. I guess I overestimated you; I should have added an ‘/s’ but I thought the using the terms ‘worldwidewebbing’ and ‘OKJeeves’ would convey my sarcastic intent.
My point is that your original comment was not to Cawthorn. It was to someone completely different. Cawthorn could have a swastika in his profile picture and call for the extinction of all trans people and it wouldn’t justify your being rude to some random guy online who said, “yeah the founding fathers would be horrified”.
You’re acting like you’re talking directly to the OP and responding directly to Cawthorn’s tweet, when you’re not.
Finally, I didn’t ‘assume’ anything. I’ve run across Ms. Crawford’s comments in the past, and happened to remember the name.
I’m not saying you’re assuming Cawthorn’s position. I’m saying you’re assuming Dookieman12’s position. What do Cawthorn’s past comments have to do with the person you’re actually responding to?
No, I want you to concede at the very least that you acted like I was incapable of understanding your ClEveR comment when it was in fact you that made a mistake, and it’d be even better if you admitted that your random “well there were trans people in the 1700s dumby!” quip a. had absolutely nothing to do with what anyone was talking about, b. was unnecessarily rude to someone who only disagreed with you in your own mind, and c. failed to disprove the thing you decided to argue against. But I don’t think you’re gonna do any of that so I think we’re done.
More condescending commentary… ok?
Who is this person, and why do I care about them? And if they’re so important, and you’re so clever, why can’t you keep their name consistent in your own comment?
Edit: he’s the guy in the OP. Again, what does that really have to do with anything? A different person in the comment section said, “the founding fathers would still be horrified”. Why are you using someone else’s beliefs to justify your rude attitude toward someone who never even implied they share those beliefs?
why can’t you keep their name consistent in your own comment?
You seem confused. I referred to Ms. Crawford twice, and both times as ‘Ms. Crawford.’
Also, your edit is as confusing a jumble as I’ve ever read. I have no idea what you’re unhappy about.
Finally, I didn’t ‘assume’ anything. I’ve run across Ms. Crawford’s comments in the past, and happened to remember the name. I guess I overestimated you; I should have added an ‘/s’ but I thought the using the terms ‘worldwidewebbing’ and ‘OKJeeves’ would convey my sarcastic intent.
My point is that your original comment was not to Cawthorn. It was to someone completely different. Cawthorn could have a swastika in his profile picture and call for the extinction of all trans people and it wouldn’t justify your being rude to some random guy online who said, “yeah the founding fathers would be horrified”.
You’re acting like you’re talking directly to the OP and responding directly to Cawthorn’s tweet, when you’re not.
I’m not saying you’re assuming Cawthorn’s position. I’m saying you’re assuming Dookieman12’s position. What do Cawthorn’s past comments have to do with the person you’re actually responding to?
You’re adorable.
Don’t ever change.
You’re an idiot.
Please change.
Unlike you, I don’t get upset by people trying to have fun.
But if it makes you feel like your accomplishing something, feel free to go ahead and berate me.
So are ad hominem attacks when someone can no longer defend their position, or even acknowledge the obvious mistake they sarcastically defended.
I don’t see why I would, based on this interaction.
even acknowledge the obvious mistake they sarcastically defended.
I’ve been replying to all your screeds.
Isn’t that acknowledgement enough for you, you greedy little minx?
No, I want you to concede at the very least that you acted like I was incapable of understanding your ClEveR comment when it was in fact you that made a mistake, and it’d be even better if you admitted that your random “well there were trans people in the 1700s dumby!” quip a. had absolutely nothing to do with what anyone was talking about, b. was unnecessarily rude to someone who only disagreed with you in your own mind, and c. failed to disprove the thing you decided to argue against. But I don’t think you’re gonna do any of that so I think we’re done.
tl, dr