No, it wouldn’t be.
“reading” is not just the meaning inferred from one word directly after the other; it is the entirely of what is presented. It is more than a clause, it is more than a sentence. The use of a ‘quote’ can be to provide context, or ‘evidence’, but the exact of what is quoted does not mean that only what is quoted is the point of reference.
The segment I quoted is not the entirely of what I addressed, and that would be made evident if you would read it through ‘entirely’ and not respond to items as you see it.
What you reply to me is line-item responses that filter out what is there instead of reacting to presumptions you are inserting because it’s easier to make something else up instead of taking the time to process what is actually there. At not point did I suggest
but that is the response you offered because you assumed that I didn’t “Read” your quote, and thus use that to rationalize the condition of not reading through what I wrote.
No, they didn’t. However, since you persist in showing how you reaffirm your presumptions with bad information – such as your reply to me that conjures up something that isn’t present, and then trie to refute ‘that’, you are indicating the very issue I am trying to present, and yet you act like I am not, and ignore it.
The capacity for people to think they ‘don’t stand a chance’ just means they don’t ‘take the chance’ and convince themselves of inaction. You demonstrate that conduct in these topics and use that as excuses for bad behavior to reinforce the bad behavior because you’re already convinced you have reasons to do so by ignoring options presented to you.
Human action is not a ‘chance’, and not taking action has direct consequences related to the missed opportunity.
“comebacks are rare” because people already convinced themselves to not recognize the opportunity because they’ve already convinced themselves they don’t ‘have a chance’. Part of the fundemental issue of these options, how they happen, and the success is derived entirely from preparation and experience. Those are things people routinely deny themselves because they look at it as “Chance” and not something more deliberate. Yes, there are ‘odds’ and elements outside of a person’s own direct control, but these particular attitudes are frequently gated behind specific ‘skill’ breakdowns largely because those that don’t learn to make and use the opportunity (oh an opponent has to ‘make a mistake’ rather than the player ‘forcing’ them to make a mistake) don’t make the effort because they’re already convinced it is ‘waste’ and then circular-reasoning themselves into accepting bad outcomes out of incomplete data.
While you may not like that the showing of the replay can be used to ‘embarrass’ the poster, if what they said is true, they don’t have anything to be ‘embarrassed about’ and it can act as confirmation of the issue presented by people claiming something has a conclusion apart from what they are willing to consider.
A major issue of not just the game, but many like it, is that people are already convinced something breaks down into only two options. One they cast as being horrible, so they are ‘forced’ to take the only other option they consider. They are blind-siding themselves with that approach, refuse to consider otherwise, and then assume things about anyone else that doesn’t directly agree with them in favor of prattling off more about what they personally can’t do, despite demonstrations contrary to their consideration.
You attitude to me is such that you think I did not read the extent of your reply, so you use that to not read through mine, and then attack what I wrote through the ignorance of your actions.
That is on you, and that is the same issue people take with the game in how they neglect possibilities because they don’t ‘read’ the situation through, and then just look to fault others because they’d rather think themselves to be ‘right’ than to actually bother to check, try something, and do better.
So in that light, I suggest you bit in a bit better effort and read this stuff through instead of ranting off on your disconnected strawman that you found, somehow, easier to shape into your ironic reply.
