If you’re saying that you're being straightforward about your feelings; that is, that you feel that you would have to be stupid not to be able to (or, in your words, "it doesn't take a genius to") read [and understand] a news article, then I agree. You are being straightforward in the sense that you are expressing your feelings candidly. That expression, though, is tactless and rude. That’s my point.

Of course I’m describing my point of view. I don’t need to tell you your own. I simply suggested that the way you worded your criticism was, perhaps a bit harsh. My exact words were:

I don’t understand why you cannot accept that deriding others for perhaps misunderstanding a news article is harsh. Again, I didn’t throw a fit about it, and I certainly didn’t intend to discuss it at this length, but it never occurred to me that one could disagree with that claim. It’s patently rude...it couldn’t be more clear...wtf?

You don’t have to be rude to be straightforward (and being rude, no matter how you slice it, is not the same as being straightforward). Being tactful is not equivalent to lying. It’s just decent social behavior. C’mon Jay.

How am I being childish? In what way I am being contradictory? I’m only defending my claim, and I’m attempting to be as diplomatic as possible.

And, I really am not too concerned. I’m concerned enough to read your response and reply, but that’s it. In other words, I will have forgotten this thread once I’ve left the website. And, I won’t remember this thread until I return to the website. That’s the level of my interest. That’s pretty standard stuff, I think.

I may be the only one who stated publicly that your remark was a little harsh, but that doesn’t mean I’m the only one who thinks that. It likely means that I’m the only one who thought anything of it. And I really only mentioned it in passing. I did not intend to discuss it over several pages online. It’s frivolous, really (that’s why I mentioned it in passing, and did not, for example, create a new thread to discuss the thoughtlessness of your remarks).

What is the simple thing that I’m broadening? The only claim I’ve made – and I’ve made it consistently – is that you may have been a bit harsh in your criticism, particularly considering the way the EO is worded. That’s it. And, as usual, you get heated and begin rambling until finally your incoherent clusterf*ck of a point crashes to a halt as all the over- and misused words and idioms relieve themselves of the responsibility of explicating your thoughts and wander aimlessly around the webpage, some praying that this might end soon so that someone more adept could acquire their services. You have a history of blowing sh*t out of proportion (I’m thinking of the many threads you spent defending the 420a engine like you were defending the honor of your girlfriend). I have no such history. You made a remark, and I simply stated that perhaps it was unnecessarily harsh, considering the wording of the EO. Then you got hot under the collar and patronized me (I need to learn to read, I don’t speak to people “vibrantly,” whatever that means, etc.). That’s how you get, though. You get angry and come off as a grumpy old man with dementia. Case in point:

I have no idea what this means. Would speaking nonsensically make you famous? I don’t know – maybe. I don’t get it.

If you want to continue with this discussion, I’ll oblige you, but I don’t know what more there is to say, or whether any of it would be worth saying.