(February 3, 2016 at 6:14 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:(February 3, 2016 at 5:52 am)Excited Penguin Wrote: You are objecting to the fact that I'm circumventing the alert, as far as I can tell. Without an objection, your post wouldn't serve its purpose, given how it is structured - as an attack.
It's not an objection. It's pointing out one possibility, one which I personally think you're availing yourself of -- but it's not an objection.
I think we've added another word to the list of those which you need to look up before you use.
I'm not objecting to your drunken change of quoting patterns -- I'm merely pointing the change out so that others can review your posting history and judge for themselves.
If you think that is an "objection", I'd argue that you're probably too sensitive to be online. Get your helmet on, strap it tight, and quit your whining.
Goddamned crybaby. Grow a pair of balls and shut up.
ETA: That last line was an attack. Get over it.
You're retroactively obfuscating your own statements now. This is where you killed the conversation.
Quote:(February 3, 2016 at 5:52 am)Excited Penguin Wrote: Because I'm not bright enough to understand how the software works? Seriously?
How is one supposed to simply understand how the software works in this instance, without being told about it?
If you're too stupid to figure it out, as I did without a tutorial, you're making my case for me.
You presumably figured it out when noticing you didn't get any alerts when I responded to you in this manner(or, at some earlier date, in similar circumstances, observing the quoting patterns of others). That has very little to do with one's brightness and much to do with certain happenings that would prompt you to make that observation.