If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Gawker)   Man who shot a nine-year-old girl who was dressed as skunk at a Halloween party with his shotgun, after confusing her for a real skunk, avoids jail time and gets only two years probation   (gawker.com) divider line 157
    More: Followup  
•       •       •

8480 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 May 2013 at 10:03 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



157 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-09 08:49:35 AM

fredklein: Mellotiger: It does indeed pay, but not so much that I'm willing to research every article in case the reporting is sloppy

So, you admit you didn't read the article posted in the 4th post. The "better article" (ie: with more details).

So I'll just go with what I'm presented unless it's actually interesting enough to follow links

If it's interesting enough to post about, I'd think it's interesting enough to click a link. But that's just me, looking for actual facts. You prefer to 'go with what you're presented'.

In the future when you chastise me over whatever perceived error, it would probably go much better if you don't make a faulty assumption at the very beginning of the comment.

It wasn't faulty- you DIDN'T read the article.


The first sentence you write in your response to me started "if you are not going to rtfa...", correct? In this case, tfa is the article the link posted on fark went to, right? Because that's the article this commentsection is associated with, is it not? You did not say "if your not going to rtfa that is not the linked article but the one linked in a comment four posts in..." Now did you? No, you didn't. You implied I didn't read the article, yet I did. If you meant some other article, you should have specified, and then you wouldn't look like such a tool. it's not my fault you either a: can't express concepts clearly, or b: got called out for your incorrect assumption and are trying to save face. Now for my part: yes, I admit I did not read the more detailed article that the comment linked to. As a result, I made a snarky comment based on bad reporting. I don't mind this happening, I'm known to make mistakes. I can own mine, you should own yours.
 
2013-05-09 09:11:37 AM

fredklein: Mellotiger: It does indeed pay, but not so much that I'm willing to research every article in case the reporting is sloppy

So, you admit you didn't read the article posted in the 4th post. The "better article" (ie: with more details).

So I'll just go with what I'm presented unless it's actually interesting enough to follow links

If it's interesting enough to post about, I'd think it's interesting enough to click a link. But that's just me, looking for actual facts. You prefer to 'go with what you're presented'.

In the future when you chastise me over whatever perceived error, it would probably go much better if you don't make a faulty assumption at the very beginning of the comment.

It wasn't faulty- you DIDN'T read the article.


On a side note, you can go fark yourself for implying I don't care about facts. I said the article wasn't interesting enough to follow links (you know, get the"actual facts"behind it), I didn't say that I didn't care about those facts. I'm not denying any facts that don't fit my narrative or anything, just saying I want interested enough to research it. For someone hung up on facts, you waste a lot of time with assumptions and inferences.
 
2013-05-09 09:34:41 AM
Discussion getting too divisive here.   Need more hot stinker pictures

lghttp.17106.nexcesscdn.net
lghttp.17106.nexcesscdn.net
i00.i.aliimg.com
 
2013-05-09 01:47:47 PM

Mellotiger: The first sentence you write in your response to me started "if you are not going to rtfa...", correct? In this case, tfa is the article the link posted on fark went to, right?


I never specified which FA you didn't R. With a choice between one with few/no details, and a "better article" with more details... well, I'll let you think about that.

If you meant some other article, you should have specified, and then you wouldn't look like such a tool.

I'll apologize then. I'm SORRY you don't bother to research (to the total effort of clicking one link, displayed near the top of the thread) the topic you are posting about.

As a result, I made a snarky comment based on bad reporting.

No, you made a snarky comment based on lack of knowledge because you 'go with what you're spoonfedpresented'.

Whatever.
 
2013-05-09 02:03:46 PM

fredklein: I never specified which FA you didn't R.


Pathetic.
 
2013-05-09 02:12:14 PM

fredklein: Mellotiger: The first sentence you write in your response to me started "if you are not going to rtfa...", correct? In this case, tfa is the article the link posted on fark went to, right?

I never specified which FA you didn't R. With a choice between one with few/no details, and a "better article" with more details... well, I'll let you think about that.

If you meant some other article, you should have specified, and then you wouldn't look like such a tool.

I'll apologize then. I'm SORRY you don't bother to research (to the total effort of clicking one link, displayed near the top of the thread) the topic you are posting about.

As a result, I made a snarky comment based on bad reporting.

No, you made a snarky comment based on lack of knowledge because you 'go with what you're spoonfedpresented'.

Whatever.


You not specifying what article, and that article not being the linked article, is what is making you look like a fool. You had a chance to admit you screwed up, I even admitted my mistake first, and you still are trying to "win" for some reason. it's not working.
 
2013-05-09 05:13:28 PM

fredklein: So, you admit you didn't read the article posted in the 4th post. The "better article" (ie: with more details).


You're a farking idiot if you think that every person who comments on a fark article is going to attempt to read every other article posted to the net on that same subject.

The fact that you keep pushing and pushing makes me want to say "fark off and die, troll".  So you win, I guess, because it's clear you don't want to talk about the story, you just want to troll about how everyone didn't read some other article.

Fark off and die, troll.
 
Displayed 7 of 157 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report