His post was a blatant misrepresentation, a joke of an example.
My post took the exact words posted in order, showing a direct contradiction in his scenario. He then edited the quote that I had and removed it.
Beforehand it said that Rock always lost. After his edit that line was entirely removed, and then he said that I misquoted him. Sure, of course it looks like much more of a misquote after an edit. But I think that is highly deceptive, so I said so.
Beforehand he said that Rock always lost, and then said that Rock didn’t actually lose. If his second statement was correct, then his first statement would be trivially false.
Let’s dig further.
Original line: “Just because Rock lost every time it was played doesn’t mean that it’s inferior to Paper or Scissors”
My quote: “”Rock lost every time it was played ”
Showing that he was talking about a scenario where Rock lost every time it was played. I highlighted the relevant part. The part about determining inferiority is irrelevant to the scenario.
Second Original Quote:
“Updating on evidence that rock doesn’t win when it is used means rock wins.”
Second My Quote:
“rock doesn’t win when it is used means rock wins.”
He is outlining a situation in which he thinks that Rock does win, even though the scenario contradicts that.
Comparing:
“I literally just … edit your post … and then say … you said … what … you didn’t say.”
I don’t think this is even close to accurate.
His post was a blatant misrepresentation, a joke of an example.
My post took the exact words posted in order, showing a direct contradiction in his scenario. He then edited the quote that I had and removed it.
Beforehand it said that Rock always lost. After his edit that line was entirely removed, and then he said that I misquoted him. Sure, of course it looks like much more of a misquote after an edit. But I think that is highly deceptive, so I said so.
Beforehand he said that Rock always lost, and then said that Rock didn’t actually lose. If his second statement was correct, then his first statement would be trivially false.
Let’s dig further.
Original line: “Just because Rock lost every time it was played doesn’t mean that it’s inferior to Paper or Scissors”
My quote: “”Rock lost every time it was played ”
Showing that he was talking about a scenario where Rock lost every time it was played. I highlighted the relevant part. The part about determining inferiority is irrelevant to the scenario.
Second Original Quote: “Updating on evidence that rock doesn’t win when it is used means rock wins.”
Second My Quote: “rock doesn’t win when it is used means rock wins.”
He is outlining a situation in which he thinks that Rock does win, even though the scenario contradicts that.
Comparing: “I literally just … edit your post … and then say … you said … what … you didn’t say.”
And saying it is equivalent is ludicrous.