QuincyAbeyie
Okay, fine. Fine. Let's do this. This is how this exchange tracked for me. It turns out you counted my sentences correctly. Well done. Here's the breakdown.
A. [Liverpool] have been shit all season so you know.
B. City have dropped points all season.
C. [City] are just not dropping these ones.
First of all, there was literally nothing to see here. Those are three uncontroversial statements. That was the point. The three statements aimed to articulate the mood of maudlin inevitability I felt concerning City's comfortable thrashing of Liverpool. I have no fucking idea why we had a totally brain-bending and annoying six part follow-up exchange.
When you first intervened, you seemed to me to say that the fact of Liverpool beating City at Anfield last year refuted something I'd said. As established, we only had three propositions to be subject to any such refutation: A, B and C.
My assumption: you meant Liverpool's 2022 win refuted A.
Carefully deciphering some of your later snappy, gnomic remarks, I now see you were obliquely calling C into question. However, since by "these ones" I'd meant the three points available to City today—to which the result of a match last year cannot be salient—I was never likely to make the leap to understanding you.
Perhaps this is a question of idiomatic differences, but your reading of C here, in which I take it you think "these ones" refers to "points available from Liverpool during the course of a season" or some other dubious arcanum, strikes me as an unexpected stretch.
Worse still, not only was this an eyebrow-raising interpretation of C, you never articulated it, which meant I ended up with no idea what the fuck you meant.
Having assumed my own intent concerning the words "these ones", and therefore that your comment must have referred to A, I defended A, joking that yes, Liverpool had had some creditable results, but a total of only 12 league wins. That is, they've been "shit all season": A.
Your response to this was, somewhat laughably with the benefit of hindsight, to scold me for deliberately misconstruing you, as if I were the one being obtuse! Perhaps if you'd been a fraction less cocksure, you might have understood my response was based on my fairest-minded attempt to reckon with your spiky gibberish. Which I am forced to acknowledge still may be wrong. It's been a challenge getting to this point.
Needless to say, I found these developments odd and antagonistic. Confused and irritated by what seemed to me a swelter of belligerent pettifoggery, I continued with further sarcasm, implying that it wouldn't be worth my time to work you out.
Well, now I have given up my time to work you out. I regret to say I was right: it definitely wasn't worth it.
You jumped in oddly about my three boringly normal statements concerning the match.
Having made a truly creative interpretation of the third of these statements, you kept it to yourself.
You called me out like you'd caught me in a contradiction, but did so in a very ambiguous way.
And in struggling to comprehend what the fuck you were on about with your triumphal casuistry, I rather naturally became sarcastic and surly.
So, to finish up. Who taught you how to have a conversation? This has been like the discursive equivalent of the worst lay I ever had. And that said, I guess this post must be the long wank I had to have afterward to get it out of my system.
