01-11-2018, 12:00 AM
Well, I was not sure if you understood what I was asking for because there are two things where we talk about different things.
I was not asking because I wanted an explanation, but because I wanted to know to which post of rosy's you were responding to. (I asked the specific questions linked to quoting you to show you how the answer can differ based on what you were responding to.)
I asked "what are you referring to" by which I mean which post of rosy's or which part of what rosy said were you responding to.
And to my question about which rosy's post (or part of rosy's post) are you responding to you answered "I am responding to rosy's post" ... so I was like... uuh, ok, how is that an answer to my question?
. --- miscommunication alert 
.
"It's probably better to not try to match my intent in a post to what you arrive at." I was not asking about or linking to your intent in the post (I got no questions on that front). I was saying given that I am unsure what you responded to that I might not have gotten at the intended meaning (a meaning that would be clearly linked to what you respond to).
" I just won't answer on Rosy's behalf."
You think I asked you to answer on his behalf which was not what I wanted you to do. The way I see it, if he explained then he would be the one explaining you.
Oh well lol.
I dare say it is my fault, cause I could have just given it more thought (and discarded the options that do not make good sense and so on) - I was just tooo lazy (to my defence it is almost 1 am now).. I mean why go through that work if one can just ask and get an answer within a couple mins?. Oh yea laziness is the culprit of it all
I was not asking because I wanted an explanation, but because I wanted to know to which post of rosy's you were responding to. (I asked the specific questions linked to quoting you to show you how the answer can differ based on what you were responding to.)
I asked "what are you referring to" by which I mean which post of rosy's or which part of what rosy said were you responding to.
And to my question about which rosy's post (or part of rosy's post) are you responding to you answered "I am responding to rosy's post" ... so I was like... uuh, ok, how is that an answer to my question?
. --- miscommunication alert ."It's probably better to not try to match my intent in a post to what you arrive at." I was not asking about or linking to your intent in the post (I got no questions on that front). I was saying given that I am unsure what you responded to that I might not have gotten at the intended meaning (a meaning that would be clearly linked to what you respond to).
" I just won't answer on Rosy's behalf."
You think I asked you to answer on his behalf which was not what I wanted you to do. The way I see it, if he explained then he would be the one explaining you
.Oh well lol
. I dare say it is my fault, cause I could have just given it more thought (and discarded the options that do not make good sense and so on) - I was just tooo lazy (to my defence it is almost 1 am now).. I mean why go through that work if one can just ask and get an answer within a couple mins?
. Oh yea laziness is the culprit of it all