But I didn't "add" anything. Dude just claims I did.I typically love your posts, but this one sounds like you might be having a bad day. You can't add material between the lines and insist it's what the other person was intending to say. You can assume and you can ask, but if they say you're reading too far into what they wrote, then you're reading too far into what they wrote.
Communication is a cultural process of coding and decoding. What people hear when you speak will be a product of your coding and their decoding processes, and both are defined by our individual experience. We're not computers, you can't send a set ot 0s and 1s to another machine. Interpretations, assumptions and questions are expected. The more our sets of codes are similar to each other, the more we are able to unmistakenly understand each other. That becomes less and less likely the more multi-layered topics get.
What I said was: it sounds as if you were saying XY. If we're now at the point where you're not allowed to listen to a statement and say: wait, I think you're saying this and that - then who is actually the "offended" party here? A statement cannot be off limits once the person simply says "oh, that's not what I meant". That's the exact thing that populists and dirty lawyers do - put something out there and once it's questioned simply play the "silly me" card.
I could be wrong with an assumption. Happens all the time. But to expect people to not have assumptions, even if you're possibly blathering at least debatable bits - isn't that kind of convenient? Especially when you backtrack without refuting the assumption in any way -and your own statement included a fair share of assumptions as well. I mean remember, he was the dude who wanted to debate it out.
I don't know, these people who keep calling everyone around them thin-skinned sure seem to be thin-skinned. /shrug