> The full sentence that you conveniently chose to cut in the middle before quoting (apparently to fit into some pessimistic forecast about the significance of Linux desktop) reads
What are you talking about? They didn't quote that sentence at all, and didn't cut in the middle of the sentence they quoted.
> And? None of those APIs are cross-platform.
Your original objection, the thing that got quoted, was about whether things are cross-vendor. That question is completely unrelated to whether things are cross-platform.
> You did say that, but it's not the part of your post they were responding to.
So if someone criticizes a portion of your statement which is already countered by your original full statement, you're not allowed to remind your full statement. What kind of logic is that?
My original post says the point of Vulkan Video is it will be cross-platform and cross-vendor. And gives one example of cross-vendor side of things on Linux.
Someone criticizes me by essentially saying "you are incorrect, that's only on Linux. Windows, Android and iOS have their own video APIs...". This "correction" is incorrect because I already said on Linux, and it goes on to actually reinforce the post that he is responding to by highlighting cross-platform side, which also is in the post he is responding to.
So, if you look at the full conversation, the criticism is self-contradictory. This is what I'm pointing out, but you are implying I'm not allowed to do that.
I disagree. When you fragment a statement in a way that changes its meaning and make a straw man out of it, people are justified in responding to it.
> So if someone criticizes a portion of your statement which is already countered by your original full statement, you're not allowed to remind your full statement. What kind of logic is that?
The other stuff in your comment did not "counter" what they said. You made statements about cross-vendor and cross-platform. They chose to only respond to one of those statements. That's not incorrect.
> This "correction" is incorrect because I already said on Linux
The first part of your comment specifically said "not "various OS' native APIs"". That goes beyond Linux. The later part of your comment was about Linux in particular, but your introduction was an overall statement that wasn't true.
> When you fragment a statement in a way that changes its meaning
They didn't. You misspoke and they didn't know what you actually meant.
And from your other post: > Obviously, I meant to say statement, not sentence, but I can't edit it anymore.
That was not obvious. They quoted an entire paragraph, and the subsequent paragraph does not change its meaning the way you're claiming it does.
What are you talking about? They didn't quote that sentence at all, and didn't cut in the middle of the sentence they quoted.
> And? None of those APIs are cross-platform.
Your original objection, the thing that got quoted, was about whether things are cross-vendor. That question is completely unrelated to whether things are cross-platform.