You are right about one thing. In a certain Michael-like way.
What you wrote is that I posted that article on "NUMEROUS THREADS IN ORDER TO GET ATTENTION." (caps mine.)
Did you mean two (2)?
But Michael, all you had to do was say "I meant, by numerous, two", when I objected to your false assertion that I had posted it on "numerous threads."
and, following the assertion that I had posted it on numerous threads to get attention, you referred to my "motivation in posting the article multiple times."
So the way in which you are right is that in saying that I had posted the article "on numerous threads," you didn't mean at all that I had posted it on "multiple threads," evidently, so it was wrong of me to understand it that way; and in any case, it was certainly an error to put in quotation marks, which would indicate that it was a single phrase, both the words "numerous times" and the word "multiple." I apologize for doing that, and assure you that if I'd understood that two was numerous, I wouldn't have gotten confused and put that word "multiple" inaccurately in the same quotes with "numerous," which means, I now understand, "two."
I'm a bit puzzled about why, if two (2) threads is, to you, "numerous" threads, you didn't just say so.
You could have written this so easily!: "E, two threads is numerous threads. Numerous threads wasn't intended by me to imply multiple threads. I meant you'd posted it on two threads to get attention and had posted it three times here."
Then any discomfiture at what you took to be that "threat"
of mine (the post with "hehe" and "*scary music*" and the words "haunt" and "Pleeeeeeeze" and "teeeeeny weeeny" and "Hint! It's a single digit!" in it!) would have been resolved instanter!
BTW, you implied I had threatened you or others in the past. I asked you to give one example, because I have never threatened anyone. Would you do that now please, or apologize for your error? |
