Not pissy. Just think it's funny how you changed your logic midstream thinking no one would notice. OK, so it's wasn't 12:52 that you realized. It was at 12:35 that you noticed another "wow" tweet - STILL AFTER MY ORIGINAL POST WHEN NEITHER OF US KNEW THAT.
I can't believe I'm not asleep yet, but this is just completely unadulterated BS at this point. And it's getting annoying now, because you keep just repeating the same tired, obviously inaccurate argument to save face or something. What is your problem?
My point was "don't read into one word tweets without context, because that's futile." Very simple, very straightforward.
Post #938, we're talking about that abstract concept, and I'm quite logically consistent.
Then you respond talking about timing and how I'm ignoring contextual evidence about the tweet. It is at this point, I go look at everything surrounding the tweet, because you've gone all Nancy Drew on the "timing" and all other kinds of implied premises that somehow make it "relevant."
My
very next post points out to you how your reasoning doesn't fit because of the unrelated 3rd party.
You're throwing lots of words around to obfuscate the situation and make it sound like I'm all over the place here over a long stretch of time, whereas the plain truth is that the three posts in the progression are quite clear, logical, and reasonable.
I had no idea what you were saying at 12:35. Had you used actual names, instead of saying "some other random dude" maybe that would have been more clear. How could I have looked at said other tweet when I had no idea who or what you were referring to? It wasn't clear to me until NDWorld's post that there was another factor here (basketball game). And again- it's not for YOU to determine what is futile and what is not, ESPECIALLY when you're electing to read into a particular tweet. That would make you a hypocrite. Just because YOU don't see a connection between something, doesn't mean A) others are wrong for doing so or B) that it doesn't exist.
Is this a joke?
You are the one who started talking about the timing of the tweets... which means
you were looking at the tweet on Twitter... which means
you were looking at the exact same thing I was looking at.
Fuller's tweet was retweeted twice... Kelly and the other guy. Directly above Fuller's tweet he had retweeted the other guy. This is all plainly obvious just by glancing at Fuller's tweet... which belies if you had taken even a second to try to understand what I was saying, you would've understood it.
So I guess I'm sorry for assuming that you'd make an honest effort to understand what I was saying?
Time to try for sleep again... and I'm definitely done wasting time on this, and will be cleaning up these posts tomorrow morning as they're now quite OT.
