Quote:
Originally Posted by indes
I don't recall anyone mentioning tone? Ironically your post is the same as the article - pick a position, make a clear wrong assumption about what someone with a different position is talking about, then attack the person. Good job!
|
I agree with your previous post on some of the issues with the article, I get t (even if it didn’t bother me), but “make a clear wrong assumption about what someone with a different position is talking about” is not an accurate description of the article. Some of the assumptions go further than necessary, but outright wrong? Not one of them. 99% of the quotes the article mentions are indefensible imo.
I’d be happy to hear alternate explanations for the quotes though, if anyone is interested in enlightening the group.