Page 2 of 2

Re: Let's talk about durability

PostPosted: Thu Dec 31, 2015 8:28 am
by Kitten Lord
Soulerous wrote:
Kitten Lord wrote:Then why did you bring it up my fallacious little friend?



You should take the following as rhetorical.



Even in a thread not about discussing your beliefs you have to bring them up yet again after I called you out on it and admitting those arguments were not for this thread yourself.... :roll:

I can only assume like a lot of your recent posts you only came here to try and troll me again.

Re: Let's talk about durability

PostPosted: Thu Dec 31, 2015 9:06 pm
by Soulerous
I have never trolled you, nor am I doing so now.

Kitten Lord wrote:like a lot of your recent posts

None of my recent posts, save those on this thread, have been aimed at you.

Even in a thread not about discussing your beliefs

You made a statement and I commented on it. Don't look too far into it.

Re: Let's talk about durability

PostPosted: Sat Jan 02, 2016 9:14 am
by Kitten Lord
Soulerous wrote:I have never trolled you, nor am I doing so now.


Right.....


You made a statement and I commented on it. Don't look too far into it.



So you did not intend to bait me at all with your comment then? the comment was purely trying to address something that I said, even though your comment barely had anything to do with what i said.....interesting little story.

Re: Let's talk about durability

PostPosted: Sun Jan 03, 2016 11:57 pm
by Soulerous
Kitten Lord wrote:Right.....

Whether you believe it or not. My arguments with you are sincere arguments, and not borne of wanting a reaction. I would prefer cold, hard debate with no reaction.

So you did not intend to bait me at all with your comment then?

No. If I had, I would've had more to say beyond minimal responses to your follow-ups. It sounded like you were attributing arguments over Kain/Raziel to the wrong thing, something that hasn't been any big issue on Factpile. I also precluded my comments on that with "unless you're talking about debates I have not seen," so you could say if that were the case. Either way, I don't see why you had to respond to my comment- which was not antagonistic- in the way you did.
Spoiler
Kitten Lord wrote:Then why did you bring it up my fallacious little friend?

Even in assuming I had intended to bait you, I didn't make an insulting comment like that. Cool your jets.

Re: Let's talk about durability

PostPosted: Mon Jan 04, 2016 7:23 am
by Kitten Lord
Whether you believe it or not



I do not believe it.

It sounded like you were attributing arguments over Kain/Raziel to the wrong thing


How? I mentioned something you admit to not have seeing before, why reply at all to it if you admittedly had not seen it? Did you just assume I was referring to something you had seen only wrongly? for what motive or purpose?



I also precluded my comments on that with "unless you're talking about debates I have not seen,"



You did, but I wonder why you did not stop there instead of going on a whole paragraph of what would obviously bait me in the thread...


I didn't make an insulting comment like that.


Its an observation, not an insult. An observation that you clearly do not like but I think its an apt response to being baited. You got what you wanted, a response.

Re: Let's talk about durability

PostPosted: Mon Jan 04, 2016 1:10 pm
by Mea quidem sententia
Stop it you two.

Re: Let's talk about durability

PostPosted: Mon Jan 04, 2016 2:46 pm
by Kitten Lord
Sorry man, ill stop responding.

Re: Let's talk about durability

PostPosted: Mon Jan 04, 2016 6:27 pm
by Mea quidem sententia
Kitten Lord wrote:Sorry man, ill stop responding.


You can respond, but I'd like the focus to be on the subject, not personal vendettas.

Re: Let's talk about durability

PostPosted: Tue Jan 05, 2016 2:53 am
by Soulerous
Kitten Lord wrote:I do not believe it.

Which is too bad, but I haven't, and don't, troll you. That's a suspicion you hold toward my tendency to disagree with you.
I mentioned something you admit to not have seeing before, why reply at all to it if you admittedly had not seen it?

I didn't comment on something I knew I hadn't seen, I commented on what I thought you were saying. I acknowledged the possibility that you meant something else just in case; things could have ended with you telling me so. But you thought I was baiting you. Why assume bait, and why assume trolling? Why is it hard to believe I'm arguing for normal reasons?
Mea quidem sententia wrote:You can respond, but I'd like the focus to be on the subject, not personal vendettas.

Unless someone wants to add something, the original discussion seems to be done. I don't consider your thoughts controversial.