Chewbacca mom accused of white privilege

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(06-23-2016, 12:47 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Oh allow me to clarify and alleviate your confusion on the suggestion of attacking the message and not the messenger:

When you reply to a message and that reply is directly related to the original message then you are attacking the message, even if you through a little flair in there. For example:

Poster A: I would not hire a homosexual
Poster B: That is most likely because you are homophobic

While this reply points to the character of Poster A; it clearly is in direct response to the message; therefore, attacking the message.

When you reply to a message and that reply is not related to the original message then you are attacking the messenger. For example:

Poster A: Suddenly very interested in the specific study and the specific person. Answer my question and I'll answer yours. Sound fair enough?
Poster B: You're awfully pissy for a guy who still hasn't given me the answer for the cyclic rate for a M4.

or

Poster A: I think it only fair that the UK hold a vote to determine if they want to remain a member of the EU
Poster B: That’s because you are a racist, bigoted, homophobic idiot

Theses replies are in no way related to the topic at hand and brings up something from a totally unrelated subject; therefore, attacking the messenger.

Let me know if you require additional example for clarity, as I am sure I can find them for you. Perhaps in this very thread.

You were complaining, yet again, about someone not answering your question in yet another thread.  My comment was directly related to what you wrote which is a recurring theme with you.

Again, why do you feel others are obligated to answer your questions when you do the same thing you are repeatedly complaining about?