Of course there could be people that fully read it and didn’t comment?
It clearly wasn’t meant to exclude every single possible reader on the internet that could have come across it. That would be a crazy interpretation.
At most, it can be read as calling out every single commentator underneath the post who did pretend to read all of it. And yes it’s clear not every commentator pretended that, so they wouldn’t fall into that category.
Trying to score points in such an obvious way is also pretty deceptive.
see, I actually assumed everyone obviously read it all before commenting, before I saw your comment. WHY you assume they didn’t? why you assume they/we pretending?
I say nothing about people who read and didn’t comment and have no idea from where this weird misunderstanding, and the accusation came from.
at this point I have the hypothesis you inclined to assume bad path where there are none, and then jump to accusations before checking if it even true. I saw zero evidence to people commented without reading, but you rise the hypothesis and then behave as if you encountered some evidence to it being true.
where is the part, when after thinking about it, you search for evidence?
Of course there could be people that fully read it and didn’t comment?
It clearly wasn’t meant to exclude every single possible reader on the internet that could have come across it. That would be a crazy interpretation.
At most, it can be read as calling out every single commentator underneath the post who did pretend to read all of it. And yes it’s clear not every commentator pretended that, so they wouldn’t fall into that category.
Trying to score points in such an obvious way is also pretty deceptive.
see, I actually assumed everyone obviously read it all before commenting, before I saw your comment. WHY you assume they didn’t? why you assume they/we pretending?
I say nothing about people who read and didn’t comment and have no idea from where this weird misunderstanding, and the accusation came from.
at this point I have the hypothesis you inclined to assume bad path where there are none, and then jump to accusations before checking if it even true. I saw zero evidence to people commented without reading, but you rise the hypothesis and then behave as if you encountered some evidence to it being true.
where is the part, when after thinking about it, you search for evidence?