no reply = accepts fail.
These kinds of posts are not useful, ricky. So cut it out.
In all rationale, what I said was in no way offensive.
If it was, please explain to me why. If you can tell me why it was not useful, citing serious points as to why, i will be quiet and not say a word. Otherwise, i do not feel like what i said what condescending at all, because it wasn't.
Here's why
Reason Number 1. He did not respond back. There are most probably two reasons why. The first reason is that he was not online, and therefore unable to post a reply. This i find incriminating, due to the fact that I saw the "online" thing yellow for about two hours after I posted my response, so he most probably saw what I wrote.
Therefore, was it incriminating that I came to the conclusion that he had nothing to say? I put such a conclusion into much more simple terms, which is as follows...
no reply = accepts fail
what I said was in no way trolling, as I would never do such a thing.
I have posted my rational and serious response as to why I have done nothing wrong.
Again, if you want to tell me to "cut it out", I politely ask you to challange me why I said anything wrong, arguing the points I cited and therefore proving what I sad was incorrect.
I am in no way being condescending, but am simply pleading for you to explain why I should "cut out" what is simply a feasible point.
You tend to come off as pretty condescending, bud. Whenever you "argue" with someone, you take a single word, phrase, or sentence out of context. You find some kind of semantic reason to disagree, or just say "no that's wrong." You then act victorious and finish with some kind of condescending/gloating statement. "Boom roasted" or "next" being the two I seem to remember at the time.
And in this case, you went so far as to assert that anyone not responding to you has accepted being a failure. It really could have been simple as them happening to walk away from the computer.
I mean no offense, man. You mostly seem like a good guy. But you're pretty condescending.