Oh I see it now, I gave an example of what their writing is leading me to believe about them. Odd that you’re reading that far into it that you’re telling me I doubt them while I’m asking for clarification.
I don’t know anything about this person, what is there to doubt yet? If anything, I’m giving them the benefit of the doubt by asking for clarification rather than joining the dogpile.
But since you’re here now, what do you think about what they’re saying? Do you understand it enough to make conclusions about their beliefs? Because that’s my problem right now, I don’t think I have enough to do it even though I’m interested in what they’re saying
I mean to say that you were concerned or at least wondered if he endorses what he is seeing or not. I felt the need to comment because I usually ran into people thinking i supported a stance just because i was able to characterize it. It’s a typical reaction. I prefer to keep in mind that we don’t know his stance. He might be pessimistic and or frustrated with the issue. Alternatively he could be an idiot who enjoys the bad situation. It would be somewhat idiotic if he has no moral qualms because he would benefit more by not drawing attention into the root cause of the issue.
My issue is the characterize seems to be all over the place at best and minorly nefarious at worse, but I think I totally get where you’re coming from.
I do appreciate the second guess though, I do sometimes write things in ways that make people think I actively dislike them when all I’m actually doing is reporting a reaction that I thought was interesting, and I think a little bit of that happened here.
In any case, legit, seems like we’re on the same page now
Oh I see it now, I gave an example of what their writing is leading me to believe about them. Odd that you’re reading that far into it that you’re telling me I doubt them while I’m asking for clarification.
I don’t know anything about this person, what is there to doubt yet? If anything, I’m giving them the benefit of the doubt by asking for clarification rather than joining the dogpile.
But since you’re here now, what do you think about what they’re saying? Do you understand it enough to make conclusions about their beliefs? Because that’s my problem right now, I don’t think I have enough to do it even though I’m interested in what they’re saying
I mean to say that you were concerned or at least wondered if he endorses what he is seeing or not. I felt the need to comment because I usually ran into people thinking i supported a stance just because i was able to characterize it. It’s a typical reaction. I prefer to keep in mind that we don’t know his stance. He might be pessimistic and or frustrated with the issue. Alternatively he could be an idiot who enjoys the bad situation. It would be somewhat idiotic if he has no moral qualms because he would benefit more by not drawing attention into the root cause of the issue.
Oh I get that, no problem.
My issue is the characterize seems to be all over the place at best and minorly nefarious at worse, but I think I totally get where you’re coming from.
I do appreciate the second guess though, I do sometimes write things in ways that make people think I actively dislike them when all I’m actually doing is reporting a reaction that I thought was interesting, and I think a little bit of that happened here.
In any case, legit, seems like we’re on the same page now