I’m directing anger at you for a personal attack. Claiming I have reading a comprehension problem is a personal attack. It is especially egregious because you refuse to defend the article to explain where I am wrong in my interpretation.
I have given multiple explanations as to why the article is bad without calling you an idiot. In fact I didn’t even say the article was bad but that it is mistitled into click bait.
No, it isn’t a personal attack. You commented “the article doesn’t even suggest what they might be hiding”.
It does.
You didn’t see it. Despite (presumably) reading the article. This means you didn’t understand what you read. I pointed that out. You got rather pissy about it, and here we are.
Saying “it might be different inside” without absolutely any support isn’t a valid suggestion. That’s why I compared it to suggesting chocolate pudding. Because it isn’t valid, it isn’t a suggestion.
So you’re back to pretending I’ve written the article. I haven’t. I’m merely explaining to you what it said, since you couldn’t figure that out yourself.
Please contact the authors of the article if your want to tell them they’re wrong.
You said I went back to saying you are the author.
I have never said you have said I’m the author. I’ve implied that your rhetoric should be directed at the authors of the article, and not me, since I’m not arguing you.
The fact that you couldn’t suss that out sort of supports my notion of you having a somewhat bad level of reading ability.
I did not.
I commented on your reading comprehension, and not even in as surly a tone as you had been using at me.
You’re directing anger towards me for them having sensationalism in their piece? How does that make sense?
I’m merely pointing what the text states.
I’m directing anger at you for a personal attack. Claiming I have reading a comprehension problem is a personal attack. It is especially egregious because you refuse to defend the article to explain where I am wrong in my interpretation.
I have given multiple explanations as to why the article is bad without calling you an idiot. In fact I didn’t even say the article was bad but that it is mistitled into click bait.
No, it isn’t a personal attack. You commented “the article doesn’t even suggest what they might be hiding”.
It does.
You didn’t see it. Despite (presumably) reading the article. This means you didn’t understand what you read. I pointed that out. You got rather pissy about it, and here we are.
Saying “it might be different inside” without absolutely any support isn’t a valid suggestion. That’s why I compared it to suggesting chocolate pudding. Because it isn’t valid, it isn’t a suggestion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis
So you’re back to pretending I’ve written the article. I haven’t. I’m merely explaining to you what it said, since you couldn’t figure that out yourself.
Please contact the authors of the article if your want to tell them they’re wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reading_comprehension
Read my post and quote where it implies you wrote the article.
Reading comprehension, indeed.
The author’s suggestion wasn’t valid and therefore wasn’t a suggestion at all.
Removed by mod
That’s not your claim. You said I went back to saying you are the author.
Show it or apologize.
I have never said you have said I’m the author. I’ve implied that your rhetoric should be directed at the authors of the article, and not me, since I’m not arguing you.
The fact that you couldn’t suss that out sort of supports my notion of you having a somewhat bad level of reading ability.
“Show it or apologise”
What are you 12?