Spiderpig wrote:
In case I didn't make it clear enough, I took for granted sly279's reply was due to genuine confusion. I'm used to people taking my own confusion as nitpicking, to the point that I don't bother to point it out anymore and just hope whatever they say later gives me a chance to get the gist of the message. I still end up understanding them much better than they themselves evidence when they're clearly too busy with the social games to listen to what is actually being said.
Moral of the story -- Before engaging in any topic you find appealing per se, make sure whomever you're talking to shares your interest in a deep conversation. The vast majority of the time, they'll just want to use speech for its rôle in primate dominance dynamics and you're in for an unpleasant surprise every single time if you don't bear these facts in mind from the start.
Yes, I assumed it was genuine confusion, also. But even if it was nitpicking, it likely wouldn't have bothered me.
I get what you mean. It really annoys me that people are that way, because it's stupid and to me makes no sense. People will use any means necessary to win an argument. They don't seem to care if they are actually
correct, they just want to come out on top.
I feel like I rarely encounter people who are willing to have a genuine discussion. They are often so certain that they are correct, that they will ignore (either deliberately or without conscious effort) any evidence to the contrary.
sly279 wrote:
I wasn't nick picking I was confused. I assumed it was probably some phrase or hidden meaning or jab I was missing
I did assume that you were just genuinely confused. Either way, it's not a big deal.