RE: Twitter link13 Oct 2021 19:28
Burleigh: I'm going to try to be as verbose as possible as it's becoming increasingly clear that you aren't able to understand what I'm speaking about and deciding that what I have said is a slight against you. I mean no such thing.
In retort to you first paragraph: If you remember correctly, I had defended you and said that you weren't the same person as destitute. You misunderstood what I had said (same group, same opinion) and seemingly decided to take offense. I tried to clarify my position saying "group" meant "board", yet you appear to have been offended again. I do not believe you to be of any "group" to speak negatively of the share, and tried to explain to you that people like destitute that speak negative constantly shut down healthy conversation. I may not have used my best words, but this was my honest meaning.
Second paragraph: Sure, you're free to take offense where you see it. I wasn't drunk (had two beers), didn't mean any offense, and tried to clarify my position; even giving you an out. You misunderstood what I was saying and took it as an affront. I find it strange that you are so eager to clarify that your position is different from what people perceive it as, while trying to force what you believe my opinion to be.
Third paragraph: Let's just let bygones be bygones. I'm not particularly fussed. I'll just never bother to step in on your or anyone elses' defence again, given the response. It's 4:30am here in Sydney, it was 4:50am when I decided to step in to say you weren't the same person as destitute. Value gained? Zero.