> You read the GP’s comment through the concept of a ‘core’ argument, which excludes some parts of what the GP said as simply examples. I think the parent reasonably doesn’t use that concept, and sees more than one argument being made.
This discussion would have gone much smoother if you'd just gone with this argument rather than jumping straight to gaslighting.
Please stay out of tit for tat spats no matter how badly someone else behaves. They're tedious, nasty, and not what this site is for. I know it's not easy, but it's important given the intention of the site.
I was responding to some plain old bulverism/gaslighting.
It’s toxic, and I’d prefer that we don’t ‘smoothly’ gloss over that.
If you hadn’t led with “I think you have missed the point, the GP’s argument wasn’t...”, it would have gone a lot smoother. The rest of what you said stood entirely without them.
Can you say what value those phrases added other than to just undermine the person you were responding to as a way of establishing your interpretation as ‘correct’?
I see I’ve been flagged for asking if you were gaslighting, but frankly the comment I was replying to fell foul of the site guidelines too.
Perhaps I should have just flagged it, but my sense is that it wasn’t enough to warrant that.
You can interpret the question about ‘gaslighting’ as some great insult, or you can take it as real observation about a toxic conversational gambit that it seems like you unintentionally engaged in.
Please stay out of tit for tat spats no matter how badly someone else behaves. They're tedious, nasty, and not what this site is for. I know it's not easy, but it's important given the intention of the site.
