08-22-2021, 03:02 PM
(08-22-2021, 11:09 AM)GMDino Wrote: See...both of you are wrong.
Matt continues to criticize something that has nothing to do with the content of the thread by playing semantics. Something I even acknowledged could be better.
And SSF continues to believe he "knows" me and what I do.
Attacking the poster and the title rather than discussing the topic.
But if that helps you two to glad hand each other and ignore the story more power to ya.
So, once again, I'll explain: I used attempted because he said he was going to blow up a building but he did not.
How does what I said have nothing to do with the content of the thread?
You're talking about the "dangers of right wing terrorism" because this guy made a bomb threat, and I pointed out that the title of the thread, which is directly related to its contents, presents the story in a way that suggests the guy actually had a bomb.
I said he didn't have a bomb, which is not only talking about the story, aka (content of the thread) but also stating a literal fact about the story itself, which you then shot down as "Well whatever, the point is he threatened to and this shows just how dangerous right wing extremism is" to which my point was.....well then present it in the right context if you want to argue that because whether he actually had a bomb or not matters to the story and the overall conversation.
