You’re right—I tried to reread byrnema’s comment to avoid that kind of error, but I must have missed that sentence twice. I should not have been so pointed. Thank you for catching my mistake.
Truthfully, it doesn’t matter what a person declares in the second sentence if they then negate that sentence with the body of their comment. Perhaps you read for feeling and tone, as I do—that’s why I didn’t point to a specific sentence as a defense in my reply.
However, what I was explaining was that while I don’t question that Alicorn should feel the way she does, I have a tendency to overly reduce problems (which feels like I’m trivializing them) and that’s probably what you were reading. I didn’t intend to do that, but since my friends say I always do that, that’s probably what I did. (Outside view.)
On the other hand, it doesn’t matter what a person declares in the second sentence if they then negate that sentence with the body of their comment. Perhaps you read for feeling and tone, as I do—that’s why I didn’t point to that sentence in my reply.
I would question whether it doesn’t count—I believe your statement was sincere, and that counts for an awful lot—but the feeling and tone was definitely what I responded to. On the gripping hand, I was being quite precise when I said “should not have been so pointed”—I think emphasizing the right to be angry is important in several contexts (example), and I would want to have still said something about the right to a berserk button … but not the slanted “even if this was not your intent”.
(Incidentally, I appreciate the degree of nuance you’ve been employing in your replies—I suspect this is one of the more valuable benefits you gain from your penchant to reduce problems!)
It is hard to extract that implication given:
You’re right—I tried to reread byrnema’s comment to avoid that kind of error, but I must have missed that sentence twice. I should not have been so pointed. Thank you for catching my mistake.
Truthfully, it doesn’t matter what a person declares in the second sentence if they then negate that sentence with the body of their comment. Perhaps you read for feeling and tone, as I do—that’s why I didn’t point to a specific sentence as a defense in my reply.
However, what I was explaining was that while I don’t question that Alicorn should feel the way she does, I have a tendency to overly reduce problems (which feels like I’m trivializing them) and that’s probably what you were reading. I didn’t intend to do that, but since my friends say I always do that, that’s probably what I did. (Outside view.)
I would question whether it doesn’t count—I believe your statement was sincere, and that counts for an awful lot—but the feeling and tone was definitely what I responded to. On the gripping hand, I was being quite precise when I said “should not have been so pointed”—I think emphasizing the right to be angry is important in several contexts (example), and I would want to have still said something about the right to a berserk button … but not the slanted “even if this was not your intent”.
(Incidentally, I appreciate the degree of nuance you’ve been employing in your replies—I suspect this is one of the more valuable benefits you gain from your penchant to reduce problems!)