Re: ATWSC Group G: Paul Hunter v Neil Robertson
LDS wrote:McManusFan wrote:It's right there! Maybe I'm reading that in a particularly unsympathetic way, but what do you expect when you decide to jump down someone's throat just for agreeing with something.
Yeah, you're becoming a bit tedious now aren't you. He really didn't "Just agree with me" did he. That's not at all disingenuous of you at all is it.
You're not reading it unsympathetically, you're not reading it at all. The the two things I have referred to as hysterical are
1. The reaction at the time to his death. Now, this could well be justified, he was clearly a well loved person, but that doesn't mean the it wasn't hysterical, it just means it was understandable hysteria. But still hysteria.
2. Iranu's reaction to my post was hysterical in it's approach to the topic, a knee-jerk tirade of insults, even though, as you yourself point out, he really, deep down, wanted to agree with me, but, for whatever reason, felt the need to surround that agreement with hysterical 'aggression', as if he sensed Hunter's mother was reading the post and preparing to run a twitter campaign against him if he didn't or something.
And you can keep repeating all the nonsense you like, you can +1 all the horse manure posts you like, you are sure free to do that, but, really, all you seem to want to do is slander the crap out of me, you don't actually want to discuss the topic at all.
Once again, just shooting off on the moral outrage line, more concerned about making me look like an ass than the actual topic at hand, and by doing so, just making yourself into even more of an ass than you're trying to pretend I am.
"How dare you say the reaction to Hunter's death was a bit of a hysterical overreaction" says the first guy, while agreeing that it was a hysterical overreaction.
"How dare you say that the guy's response to your post was a hysterical overreaction" says the second guy, while not even bothering to say whether they thought the reaction to Hunter's death was a hysterical overreaction.
How about we get a third guy in to complain about how my reaction to you is hostile because all you did was say that the first guy agreed with me, that'd be great, pure trolling inception of the highest order...
Holy rubbish
How was it a tirade of insults?
Ok my first post said yours was stupid. I apologise for that.
There’s not a single insult in my following explanation (which by the way you literally asked for so I’m not sure how that’s jumping on you). I say one of your phrases (not you, the phrase) is insane, call one of your views horrendous, and another thing offensive. Not one of those things is an insult.
You’d rather focus on this than actually respond to the points I raised and questions I asked.
-
Iranu - Posts: 41408
- Joined: 24 January 2010
- Walk-On: Fort Knox - Noel Gallagher's High Flying Birds