How amazingly coincidental that your apparent exasperation as expressed by your "headdesk" lead in in reply#52, is now being post engineered as not connected to the (remarkably similar and easy to mistake as synonymous) very first line "My head is throbbing" of your very next reply #54.
Actually yes, it is coincidental. Exerting my already overtaxed brain resulted in a massive headache.
OK I fully accept that.
Also, "*headdesk*" is just a figure of speech, similar to "*facepalm*" and such. I didn't actually hit my head on my desk.
Where did I express anything that implied I believed you'd smashed your head on your desk?
No mate, I addressed it as an expression of exasperation, not as an accurate physical description
(this is an excellent example manipulative re-interpretation)
What isn't amazing, is the completely typical avoidance dance you undertake whenever you are confronted.I have over 7000 posts.
Not one to one with me you haven't. Perhaps I wasn't specific enough, but my further sentences made it quite obvious I was talking about a post history we share.
I pointed out that you should learn as much as you can before engaging in a discussion.
And still you carefully manage to accidentally fail to address the glaring fact that I have shown you several times already the effect of the question was to provide me with all the information I needed.
Why does anybody refer to authorities for their authoritative opinions?
To get their opinion.
Why refer to authorities?
Because they are fucking authorities.
Who has the most concise and accurate information from which to make an opinion?
This is about your opinion. Going with what everyone else already thinks isn't really helpful. It doesn't provide new insight. It doesn't provide a "fresh viewpoint". It's just stating the obvious (at best).
In the context of this thread, you don't even have the luxury of saying that you stated the obvious. You just stated what everyone already knew was not an option.
I will address this in the simplest terms possible.
For those who momentarily need to be unable to understand inferences for the sake winning, here is an alternate post.Dear thread ....here is my opinion
It is obvious there is a deadlock, if there was any chance of a reset, my opinion is, one simple way to break the deadlock is by the person who admitted giving "cause" retracting the statement that gave the supposed cause (real or imagined).
Then the person hiding behind the cause(real or imagined) would be left exposed.
Of course if there is no chance of a reset then my suggestion is invalid.
Who can easily answer my question with just one word as opposed to me reading hundreds of old posts.One question for hundreds of old posts isn't even close to being relevant to the entirety of Jstwebbrowsing's posts. You'd need to ask dozens of questions to get the full picture. Why do so when you can easily access the info? You don't even have to read all of the posts; just 1 out of every 5 should give you a general idea of why people are pissed at Jstwebbrowsing.
It you look at the question carefully, it might become apparent that I was asking for other's learned opinions.
They are people I have associated with long enough for me to grant then some authority.
I was not asking for a re-run of Jst's post history, I was asking do the people involved consider there was any chance of a reset.
If the people involved can't answer that simple question (having been through the whole fucking process), how the hell am I supposed to make an accurate appraisal reading just one out of five of Jst prolific outpourings?
Now you are just being deliberately and obdurately stupid.
For fuckssake OAA why would I need to ask more than one question to get the exact answer I successfully asked one question for?
And you'll never know the number of times I have bitten my tongue watching your sometimes somewhat a little less than always accurate posts in deference to your school age.
Why? Do you think that I care if you point out when you think I'm wrong? If anything, I appreciate it. I like when people speak their minds, even if I disagree with what they're saying.
I Edited my words above as not accurate but I see you answered it before the Edit please note there is a postscript that was not there previously