AlphaLackey
Registered User
If we want to break down where you went wrong, it starts in your first sentence (i.e., "one side flouts the rules by *****ing about the team/coaching decisions in the team GDT") which isn't actually against the rules whereas *****ing about posters is actually against the rules. So you've got it exactly backwards. Then you followed that up with a lot of unintelligible twaddle - like where you said "one side would be completely placid if not for agitators" but anyone who spent an hour in English Lit would know that placid is not the right word here bc if one side were truly placid, they would not be bothered by people who question the coaching decisions. Finally, you accused me of a false equivalency but since whining = whining, its not a false equivalency. Its just an equivalency.
First of all, you did the exact same thing you're accusing me of, and you did it first, so anything I've done, at worst I'm merely as bad as you and given that A. you instigated it and B. one side is committing two wrongs, I'm the lesser and later of two evils. So no, you've got it exactly backwards.
Secondly, "placid" is not an absolute stillness but a near absolute one, and nothing in the definition suggests an undisturbable nature ("*not easily* upset. Calm *with little movement*"). It's a fine fit and gets the point across, and anyone that spent even one hour in English lit would know that
Thirdly, it is a false equivalency, both sides are not on an equal moral plane. One side is breaking rules first and worst. One side would continue to break the rules in absence of the other; the other would not. It is a false equivalency to suggest both sides are equal.
Is that clear enough? Could you keep up? If you need me to type it again but slower, just let me know.