Thank you. This is precisely what I wanted to reply but didn’t trust myself last night to not get in trouble with dang.
He is the one who specifically brought up profits as a potential reason to accept catastrophe then got all offended and aggressive, name calling etc when people challenged this. Even going as far as to deny bringing profits into it THEN admitting he had no idea of the numbers but STILL doubling down on the ‘don’t believe your lying eyes about what I wrote’.
I genuinely questioned whether it was just me until I checked back in the thread this morning.
Or at least type out the quoted sentences that you remember with 'edgy' and 'pathetic'? And then any passing reader can email dang to confirm if that's in a past comment revision, like you said?
If your unwilling to put in that basic effort after making such an accusation, then it seems self-defeating, plus no one would trust it.
I do sometimes use 'edgy', so maybe that is possible, but I really don't think I've ever called anyone 'pathetic', so this seems like a lame accusation.
(As a sidenote I don't even remember for my own comments made 48 hours ago how I edited them or what words changed after, so it's pretty astonishing that another user is keeping track.)
He is the one who specifically brought up profits as a potential reason to accept catastrophe then got all offended and aggressive, name calling etc when people challenged this. Even going as far as to deny bringing profits into it THEN admitting he had no idea of the numbers but STILL doubling down on the ‘don’t believe your lying eyes about what I wrote’.
I genuinely questioned whether it was just me until I checked back in the thread this morning.