Okay, so either I’ve done something that I have reprimanded you for and thus am a hypocrite, or you are starting to do the old “moral high ground” chain of escalation that usually ends with someone mindlessly crying hypocrite just to win a super useless internet argument.
Let’s summarize: I made a mediocre throw away joke by making up a conversation to a meme that’d lead to a “makes you chuckle a little” punchline. I deliberately used comedic, very casual language.
You replied with a comment that started with sarcasm and suggested I wanted to invalidate the OP meme because of a made up situation.
I then remarked that you interpreted a statement that was not made into my words, claimed moral high ground and.went about it in a snarky way (sarcasm and all).
So, either you are trying to tell me that your reply to me was a joke as well, which would have the potential to make me a hypocrite, yet I’d like to add that there was neither a punchline not anything else that would qualify your statement as a joke, so how was this “joke” of your’s meant to play out?
Or you did exactly what I said, continued to freely interpret stuff that wasn’t said into my replies and then attacked those.
This “discussion” is completely irrelevant of course since again, I did not say anything that was grounds for discussion at all and didn’t intend to in an way shape or form, so I think this response should suffice to end it. You might want to ask yourself which of the possibilities described fits. You need not respond or anything, I’m not petty enough to need a win here or anything, but perhaps you can learn something about the way you communicate.
You would have preferred that I pointed out your rank hypocrisy in a less creative way that’s no amount of fun for anyone to read?
I thought being no fun was the halfway legitimate half of your complaint but I guess you’re a hypocrite about the whole thing 🤷
I like Liam Neeson, I had fun.
Okay, so either I’ve done something that I have reprimanded you for and thus am a hypocrite, or you are starting to do the old “moral high ground” chain of escalation that usually ends with someone mindlessly crying hypocrite just to win a super useless internet argument.
Let’s summarize: I made a mediocre throw away joke by making up a conversation to a meme that’d lead to a “makes you chuckle a little” punchline. I deliberately used comedic, very casual language.
You replied with a comment that started with sarcasm and suggested I wanted to invalidate the OP meme because of a made up situation.
I then remarked that you interpreted a statement that was not made into my words, claimed moral high ground and.went about it in a snarky way (sarcasm and all).
So, either you are trying to tell me that your reply to me was a joke as well, which would have the potential to make me a hypocrite, yet I’d like to add that there was neither a punchline not anything else that would qualify your statement as a joke, so how was this “joke” of your’s meant to play out?
Or you did exactly what I said, continued to freely interpret stuff that wasn’t said into my replies and then attacked those.
This “discussion” is completely irrelevant of course since again, I did not say anything that was grounds for discussion at all and didn’t intend to in an way shape or form, so I think this response should suffice to end it. You might want to ask yourself which of the possibilities described fits. You need not respond or anything, I’m not petty enough to need a win here or anything, but perhaps you can learn something about the way you communicate.
I wish you a pleasant day.
You are awful
Can’t disagree with that