Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth
You did it in an unncessarily contentious way, like it was a courtroom -- anticipating his response and then repudiating it, etc. Then you doubled down. You easily could have made the same point in a light non confrontational way. It's just a trivia question, if Ted didn't frame it well, so what, once we saw his answer we knew what he meant.
|
Exactly what I'd expect from you, along with comments about how you seem to know exactly what people did or didn't mean. And quit trying to put words in my mouth or telling me what I was or wasn't trying to do. I didn't double-down on anything or try to be contentious. I merely stated what looked to me to have been a previously given correct answer by someone, given what the OP finally said the answer was.
And did it ever occur to you that I pointed out my reasoning for why I believed the OP's question was flawed so that I at least tried to support my position and opinion? Had I simply said mr2686 already gave the correct answer, and nothing else, I would likely have been shot down and chastised by the likes of you or others anyway for daring to say something you may have thought of as stupid, and with no logic, reason, or evidence to support it. If there's one thing I've learned from this forum, it's to state your reasoning, logic, and evidence up front so you can't be put down for not having any. But I guess that doesn't work or help either because even when you do state up front why you believe something, people, like yourself maybe, will then just take and twist that and try to find another way to blame you and make it look to others like you'reyy the one who was wrong.
But wait, that's right, you know more accurately what I'm thinking and what I mean than I ever could. Thank God you told me I was trying to be mean and confrontational with someone else, I thought I was just being honest and factual. I am so glad you can discern from my printed words exactly what my thoughts and intentions were. (And yes, that is pure sarcasm directed at you for having the audacity to tell me that I somehow didn't know what I meant or was thinking, but you do. How dare you!)
And in the meantime, like I've seen and encountered from so many contrarians and naysayers on this site before, when you ask them a direct question for which they apparently have no supporting evidence or logic to answer you with, they invariably seem to ignore your question and don't respond or answer, probably out of fear it would prove them wrong, and then they'd have to admit it. I'm still waiting for someone to respond to my question about how the OP's question regarding Judge and Maris hitting 61 homers really has anything to do with Ruth since he never hit 61 in a season, and then why anyone would logically and automatically assume that since the first part answer to his question specifically excluded Ruth, why would anyone then knowingly assume Ruth was included in the second part of the answer.
A few posters did seem to agree with my logic, but no one has proffered any info or evidence to really refute me. Oh, Peter did point to the OP including a card of Ruth in his initial post as evidence of the intention to include Ruth in the answer, but we all have seen threads where posted cards/images don't have anything to do with the actual topic of the thread. And if the OP's intention was to include Ruth in the question after all, then why wasn't Ruth included in the answer in part one of the question.
I am sorry to anyone reading this and wondering why I'm carrying on, but if there's one thing about me you should know, I am not going to back down from anyone's bullsh@t and bullying. And if you're going to try to accuse and/or start something with me, I am most definitely going to try and finish it.