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?
Why would I reply on a public comment how exactly I detected this, assuming you do believe there is in fact some technique?
Asking me in a public comment to reveal techniques that would obviously help such pretenders evade better in the future is just nonsensical, at least put it in a DM.
And if you don’t believe there is any such technique, why pretend to ask in the first place?
See, my leading hypothesis is that you inclined to make negative interpretations, without noticing you are doing it or that there are alternative, and without checking what interpretation is more likely. I think this because i saw you doing it twice.
so saying that you did look on the alternative, that you considered both options and then chose one, is already giving new information. although, you didn’t actually said you did that.
I will say on my part that in Facebook I frequently have the experience of reading comments when it looks like they didn’t read the post they commented on, and I didn’t have this impression here.
and also that the “obviously help such pretenders evade better” is yet another example of the “making negative assumptions”. like… you do understand it’s not obvious, yes? that your negative assumptions look obviously wrong to me, and that you provide exactly zero evidence, and what is worse, that it doesn’t look like you understand that “providing evidence” is something you should do?
do you notice that negative interpretation step you are doing? because what I want is for you to stop doing it for short time, but… do you see there is a thing you are doing, and you can do something else instead?
because, it’s actually pretty hard to communicate when you jump to some wrong conclusions every comment, but it doesn’t look you can the jumps.
and going that “your comment assuming wrong negative interpretation” each time is not working. I say and you assume A-> B and then replay to B and if I try to replay instead of meta-replay, it would have looked like… “But I didn’t say B, or C, or D, and the options are not F or G, I actually think H, and also, you can’t claim B C D without any reason, and you didn’t react in any way to A, which is the thing I actually said”.
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?
Why would I reply on a public comment how exactly I detected this, assuming you do believe there is in fact some technique?
Asking me in a public comment to reveal techniques that would obviously help such pretenders evade better in the future is just nonsensical, at least put it in a DM.
And if you don’t believe there is any such technique, why pretend to ask in the first place?
See, my leading hypothesis is that you inclined to make negative interpretations, without noticing you are doing it or that there are alternative, and without checking what interpretation is more likely. I think this because i saw you doing it twice.
so saying that you did look on the alternative, that you considered both options and then chose one, is already giving new information. although, you didn’t actually said you did that.
I will say on my part that in Facebook I frequently have the experience of reading comments when it looks like they didn’t read the post they commented on, and I didn’t have this impression here.
and also that the “obviously help such pretenders evade better” is yet another example of the “making negative assumptions”. like… you do understand it’s not obvious, yes? that your negative assumptions look obviously wrong to me, and that you provide exactly zero evidence, and what is worse, that it doesn’t look like you understand that “providing evidence” is something you should do?
do you notice that negative interpretation step you are doing? because what I want is for you to stop doing it for short time, but… do you see there is a thing you are doing, and you can do something else instead?
because, it’s actually pretty hard to communicate when you jump to some wrong conclusions every comment, but it doesn’t look you can the jumps.
and going that “your comment assuming wrong negative interpretation” each time is not working. I say and you assume A-> B and then replay to B and if I try to replay instead of meta-replay, it would have looked like… “But I didn’t say B, or C, or D, and the options are not F or G, I actually think H, and also, you can’t claim B C D without any reason, and you didn’t react in any way to A, which is the thing I actually said”.