CriticKitten said:
You implied them both in the way your post was written.
No, you inferred them. Words mean things, CriticKitten, and I am not so in love with my voice that I will spend a hundred words saying why I think an idea is unlikely when what I mean is "It's impossible."
CriticKitten said:
You are directly stating that the notion of this being a vendetta is absurd.
Yes, I was.
CriticKitten said:
This implies that you don't honestly believe that it's possible this was a vendetta at all.
No, it doesn't. "Absurd" and "impossible" do not mean the same things. That is why they are not the same word.
CriticKitten said:
Which reinforces my first point, namely, that you don't believe that members of CA would engage in such a "conspiracy" as part of a vendetta.
You're right. I don't.
CriticKitten said:
This isn't implying so much as directly stating that you believe that IF this was, in fact, a vendetta on the basis of revenge, that Spoony most likely did something first to order to merit it.
No, that is me asking of all the people who insist that the women of thatguywiththeglasses.com are out to get Mr. Antwiler: Why? No one does things without a motive for doing them. Why would they be out to get him? How do they profit by it? If they're doing it for revenge, then what is the act they need revenge for, such that they think getting him fired is an appropriate vengeance? Or do you think he never did anything to them and they just sit around all day in Snake Mountain, plotting with Skeletor and Evil-Lyn about how much they hate things that make people happy?
CriticKitten said:
So yeah, no part of my post was wrong.
It is.
CriticKitten said:
We are not in disagreement there, though I would point out that no one is exactly a "good" party in this situation.
I don't remember saying anyone is.
CriticKitten said:
No, it's quite obvious that all parties involved are being incredibly stupid here, so I think it's quite reasonable to assume that such a situation could occur when everyone seems to be in competition to see who can be the biggest dicks.
Without personal knowledge of the kinds of people Ms. Christine, Ms. Pregler, and Mr. Antwiler's ex-girlfriend are, this is unsubstantiated conjecture; and when I hear people conjecture about the personality of someone they don't know, I have to assume they're projecting.
CriticKitten said:
Hm...Fair enough. I misremembered its wording.
CriticKitten said:
The only reason Spoony was suspended in the first place was due to the events Lupa set into place.
No, it isn't.
A friend of Diamanda Hagan (a reviewer on the site, if you're unfamiliar with her) has claimed "credit" for being the spark in this case. He claims that Mr. Antwiler was verbally abusive toward him on Twitter and that he, Diamanda Hagan's friend, complained to the management at thatguywiththeglasses.com about Mr. Antwiler's hateful and unprofessional behavior. Sadly, I can't site my source for this because it was on the Spoony subforum at thatguywiththeglasses.com, which no longer exists...If you want to go looking for evidence of it, I believe the fellow's Twitter handle has the word "twisted" somewhere in it. I'm sure the evidence exists out there somewhere.
Between this "twisted" fellow's willingness to accept responsibility for it and the staff at thatguywiththeglasses.com adamantly stating the termination can in no way be linked to Ms. Pregler, I cannot interpret these alternate conspiracy theories in any charitable way. I have to assume they are the work of rage-driven fans who want to punish someone for Mr. Antwiler having to sleep in the bed he made...and since these theories all list women as the villains, and often decry the original Tweet to Ms. Chapman as "just a joke," I can't help wondering how much of it is driven by some sort of knee-jerk misogyny. I freely admit that last bit might just be leftovers from all the talk about misogyny online lately, though.
CriticKitten said:
Whether his firing was triggered by his explosion via Twitter or not, there is no scenario in which Lupa walks away with zero guilt in the matter, because she initiated the events leading to his suspension.
I do not care if Ms. Pregler bears any guilt in this. I have never argued that she's guiltless. I've only ever said that I'm very tired of people acting like because she said something, his free will was completely overridden and he's somehow not responsible for the things he said and did. It's not true. He is a grown man and he was every bit as capable of silently pressing the Block Tweets From This User button as everyone wants her to be.
CriticKitten said:
It's amusing to see you resort not only to false proclamations about your own previous statements, but ad hominem as well.
I never have bothered to memorize all these Latin, Debate 101 words, but it's my understanding that an attack is
ad hominem if it assumes the other guy's personal character is somehow at issue. Yours isn't: I do not know or care what kind of person you are. I am accusing you of misunderstanding my points and basing your entire response on a faulty foundation, just as you accused me of misunderstanding human nature and basing my opinion on a faulty foundation.
CriticKitten said:
It makes things so much easier, because I don't even have to dismiss your points. Really, you weaken them yourself, by resorting to such pettiness as personal attacks.
Heh. That's a surprising number of words for someone who does not feel he has to dismiss the statement he's telling me he needn't dismiss.
