• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    -42 months ago

    I don’t understand what you mean by “constantly”, I made one comment here and clarified when questioned. I prepended my comment with “as far as I know” is exactly because I wasn’t 100% sure on it.

    And I only made the “that doesn’t mean he wasn’t” because they literally aren’t exclusionary conditions, and I cited an example as to why I’m stating that that wouldn’t necessarily contradicts my previous comment.

    And I also immediately clarified that I messed up and didn’t mean “well off” in the billionaire sense. The example I had in mind wasn’t also a billionaire, but he was still from a rich family.

    I’ve made a bunch of conditionals for my statement exactly so that is didn’t pass as you are describing, and made it clear that while I was remembering something about Gaben but I could be misremembering the specifics, which is why I mentioned I would be looking it up later, I just don’t want to do an extensive search on a cellphone. Which is just making me more confused as to your replies to me. Did you read my second comment fully? Are you mixing me up with someone else?

    • @jorp
      link
      12 months ago

      “a bunch of conditionals for my statements” are also known as weasel words. You don’t seem interested in learning from this experience.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        -22 months ago

        How were they weasel words? Honestly.

        I’ve commented about something I remember but that I wasn’t completely sure on. I’ve further clarified what I meant and specified the context of it. I also mentioned I intend to verify the information but just can’t right now (I’ll be able to later today, as I mentioned).

        I still don’t get why are you so aggro on me. Are you sure you are not mixing me with someone else? I still don’t get what you meant by “constantly”.