I actually made the exact same point in my original response, but cut it down because it was getting too long. Personally, I find it very frustrating and take it with a grain of salt when someone is framed as being "weirdly defensive" simply because they're willing to endlessly reply to instances of their point being challenged (often requiring increasingly detailed clarification). It's happened to me a lot, personally. I don't do it to be defensive, I do it because (a) I don't mind, (b) to be helpful and (c) (ironically) try to show myself as arguing in good faith.
I am curious now, though. Can you clarify if you did make that rant because you're simply anal about the irrational logic of the statement, or because you are a teacher who happened to personally take offense to it because it hit close to home (or I guess both)? I did not see any sign of the latter, except that I wasn't sure why you didn't respond to any of FAN's multiple teacher-based accusations. Was that just out of a complete unwillingness to engage in spun narratives?
I debated a while about whether or not I should continue to engage in this sub-discussion largely because I already feel bad about the way it's sorta derailed the thread. I genuinely did not expect that my offhanded complaint about a specific comment would generate the drama that it did. In the end, I felt your thoughtful comments and questions deserved a response.
I still don't think a single post counts as rant, fwiw, lol.
Anyways, I can personally think of several reasons why someone, such as myself, would be irked by a statement that have absolutely nothing to do what they do for a living. It appears that a certain poster is unable to conceive of those possibilities.
As is usually the case, the real reason I didn't respond to the demands to reveal my occupation is pretty mundane and definitely not worthy of the passionate responses it's apparently compelled a certain poster to make. When I joined this site about 14 years ago, I decided I would not divulge personal information that had the potential to pierce the anonymity HF provides by default.
I'm simply continuing to abide by that principle. Nothing more, nothing less.
I won't make any further comments about this subtopic.
Instead I'll say that if you stuck Krog into any adult rec-level hockey team, he would absolutely dominate.
Oh, for crying out loud.
I never contended that there was anything inherently wrong with "drawing conclusions." I simply said that I found the specific conclusion that you drew in that instance based on his rant to be unwarranted due to other simpler explanations (which seem very normal and probable to me) that don't require a baseless strawman explanation of him secretly being a teacher who took things overly personally.
In your case, my conclusion (based on your post, not mine) is that "rant" doesn't appear to be used all that innocently here.
Sure, I could be corrected (and you're welcome to shed light on it), but how is the term "ranting" in this:
.... supposed to be taken as the innocent/light-hearted variety? The paragraph is a pretty clear-cut attempt to be dismissive/negative of me (the opposite of innocent).
Disagreeing with a certain conclusion that you've drawn does not automatically make any conclusion that I draw hypocritical.
You see what I've been dealing with, right?