Which doesn’t matter. You know very well, or if you’re as smart as you think you are, you should know, that this is meaningless in the context of this thread. You like to criticize people about context, well the context is “this conversation”. Not the past, not somewhere else, not a Super Bowl commercial, not an alternate universe - in this thread - which is the only context that matters. Your change-of-language occurred later in the thread and you communicated poorly earlier in the thread. That’s the context, and that’s still on you even though you’re trying to dodge and weave referring to other contexts that are moot. You are responsible for the quality of your communications within this thread.
Well done, you’ve just demonstrated a second way that you were wrong while somehow managing to try to dodge responsibility for your error. So… grats… or something.
You didn’t explicitly claim it, but you tried to imply that you speak with authority on the topic when your own citations demonstrate that you don’t. And now you’re using weasel words in attempt to try to avoid responsibility for your shady tactics, doubling down on your refusal to argue in good faith.
Again with the weasel words. You didn’t explicitly claim to be in those exact words, but you tried hard to imply it. You’re just as responsible and accountable for an implied claim as for an explicit one.
Don’t care what you were doing, doesn’t matter. No matter why you were doing it, it was still a bad argument and an attempt to falsely bolster the appearance of your authority.
Again yes, you did. You deliberately implied it, which is the same thing as claiming it. Implying a claim while denying you made the claim is one of the oldest tricks in the book for arguing in bad faith.
Which still doesn’t matter, it’s outside the context of this conversation. You remember context, that thing you like to criticize other people about. Surprise! it applies to you too.
Nope. You explicitly accused me of doing it, which has nothing at all to do your experience on a public server.
You said, “Maybe you shouldn’t have been using them to pad your land claim.”, which was a false conclusion on your part.
As you like to point out, context matters.
That would be impressive, but no. You should have recognized it from the winky-smiley face, which is the universally accepted signal for “I’m just kidding”. You were so busy trying to be right that you didn’t see the obvious context clue that it wasn’t a serious statement.
In that case post a link to the quantitative and objective assessments you’ve posted elsewhere. I’ll bet dollars to doughnuts that they’re just your opinion, lacking in data that would make your assessment objective. You know, the same fallacy that you like to accuse other people of.
Lead by example: show the data that would make your claim factual, or just be honest and admit it’s only your personal opinion about what’s worse and what’s not.
