|
Well, yes, irony is what I was going for there.
Anyways: I would not be trading unpleasantries with you right now if you had shrugged off my earlier "Man, The Box has a lot of rules nowadays" comment. Which is not to say you shouldn't have called me out on it if you felt wronged by it... but it was a run-of-the-mill poke-the-Boxee-with-a-stick post, not to mention that I thought it was pretty apt given the scolding you gave drew for his posts immediately followed by the pleading to BMJ to change his way of posting, too. It seemed like there were rules that you — as perhaps the most conspicuous poster in The Box — had in mind that your fellow posters were not following.
I'm working under the belief that you understood that was my point, yet asked me for clarification. If that was not your understanding, then I apologize for escalating. But it's my belief that you asked for clarification only to provoke an argument, and then spun off my clarification (admittedly a snarky clarification) into its own thread in order to expand the argument. If so, then you don't get to be astonished that I am being snarky with you and that I 'won't let it go' after asking for it and creating a thread with my name in the title for the purpose of it.
In an earlier post in this thread I gave you a laundry list of criticisms about your posting to this thread. I read your post immediately above to mean that you believe I am mechanically regurgitating old snarky tropes about you that are 'based on nonsense and misleading information'. My intent was actually to cite current examples of your posts that play into those old tropes, as I believe your reputation is well-earned and you are not aware of when you are playing into that reputation. Take that or leave it as you see fit.
|