Hey look it’s some asshole who didn’t read the fucking article and they’re quoting some other asshole who didn’t read the fucking article and who’s somehow oblivious to the comment from the person I replied to that says “oh I didn’t read the article.” (emphasis added)
Although I’m awed by your commitment to being the dumbest motherfucker on the planet, you could’ve spared yourself getting so upset about this water-is-wet statement of fact by just reading for a minute before opening your dumb mouth.
Your previous comment was pretty vague about what you were responding to. You should have made it clear you were responding to the article and not the comment you actually replied to because that’s what it sounds like. You really don’t have a right to respond this aggressively.
I disagree about the clarity. It’s a thread of replies that begins with a direct quote from the article. Any vagueness could be cleared up by either asking a question or reading the article.
When someone replies directly to me quoting something completely irrelevant and unrelated saying “you suck,” I reserve the right to mock them. Especially when my original comment should be as controversial as saying the article was published in the Times of Israel on November 1st.
I made a single, well-founded assumption that you didn’t read the article. If you did read it, it’s worse. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that, had you read it, you would have actually replied to what I said and not posted something completely irrelevant.
Care to elaborate on how videos not depicting death of any kind are evidence of murder? Or what the IDF’s very specific response to the very specific crimes shown on these very specific videos has to do with what you quoted? Or what that has to do with my very narrow (and true) statement that the videos in question don’t depict murder?
Being dismissed from service is too little for actual murder.
Better than transfered to another department.
deleted by creator
Agreed, but none of these incidents involve murder.
You suck.
Hey look it’s some asshole who didn’t read the fucking article and they’re quoting some other asshole who didn’t read the fucking article and who’s somehow oblivious to the comment from the person I replied to that says “oh I didn’t read the article.” (emphasis added)
Although I’m awed by your commitment to being the dumbest motherfucker on the planet, you could’ve spared yourself getting so upset about this water-is-wet statement of fact by just reading for a minute before opening your dumb mouth.
Your previous comment was pretty vague about what you were responding to. You should have made it clear you were responding to the article and not the comment you actually replied to because that’s what it sounds like. You really don’t have a right to respond this aggressively.
I disagree about the clarity. It’s a thread of replies that begins with a direct quote from the article. Any vagueness could be cleared up by either asking a question or reading the article.
When someone replies directly to me quoting something completely irrelevant and unrelated saying “you suck,” I reserve the right to mock them. Especially when my original comment should be as controversial as saying the article was published in the Times of Israel on November 1st.
On top of making a shit ton of incorrect assumptions that were unjustified you doubled down on proving you suck.
Keep up the good work champ.
I’ll stand by my assessment that you suck.
Meh. I’ll live.
I made a single, well-founded assumption that you didn’t read the article. If you did read it, it’s worse. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that, had you read it, you would have actually replied to what I said and not posted something completely irrelevant.
Care to elaborate on how videos not depicting death of any kind are evidence of murder? Or what the IDF’s very specific response to the very specific crimes shown on these very specific videos has to do with what you quoted? Or what that has to do with my very narrow (and true) statement that the videos in question don’t depict murder?
Oh I hadn’t read the article; so this time it’s not murder. My point still stands but I guess that’s a relief.