Quote:
Originally Posted by Sil_liS
And your reaction to what was going on in that review thread has somehow managed to make you distort the sequence of events as you said: "She queried, there was a retaliation, she tried to back down, someone threw in the "special snowflake" comment and the author got offended and it seemed to devolve from there." It just didn't happen that way, as there was no retaliation and author backing down between the author questioning the rating and snowflake comment.
|
And...?
I've already responded to that and the detail really wasn't significant to my impressions, nor to my opinions about the behaviours of either group in the discussion - especially because my impressions were received when I actually read the thread and at that time the sequence of events would have been more obvious to me.
Are we actually disagreeing about anything? Because it seems like you're trying really hard to disprove something; as if a misremembered detail in the sequence of events somehow invalidates the case in a court of law. Are you particularly sensitive about this event?