|
>
>Wrong. Try again.
>
Nope
>
>Right. Because you you're hyperfocused on the fact that Pete
>actually served Ye up for once.
>
Not hyperfocused I just know where it's going when I give more examples.
>It seems that you lack the nuanced perspective to grasp that,
>though Pete didn't cowtow or placate Kanye West for once, and,
>for a brief moment, served him up after being antagonized
>relentlessly, not to mention threatened, the overwhelming bulk
>of his response was the high road.
>
lol once again you can't have it both ways. IF I suggest that Pete should do something worthy of the high road praise, you can't label it "cowtowing" or "placating. It's the high road or it's not.
>
>Meanwhile we're having a granular discussion about the
>individual parts, as well as the overarching whole. There's
>nothing misleading at all here, apart from your Ye colored
>glasses tainting the entirety of your perspective. But carry
>on.
>
Nah your whole conversation is misleading. You are using assumptions and drawing conclusions based on that.
>
>... and I provided you with a nuanced answer that stated that
>"highest" was hyperbole, and the "wife" quip was matching Ye's
>immaturity, but everything else he said was a high road
>response.
Nope you ducked the friend part again. Your complaint was I "found a minute spec and determined the whole was bad..." even after I pointed out the friend posting what Pete said was private. I didn't ask you to answer for Tiger I explained why I was using that comment and what else I did when I rejected his high road comment.
>
>:I used Petes words and
>>his friends actions. How is that saddling Pete.
>
>WHAT?
>
If I say Pete was in on it that is not saddling. This is not hard.
>Are you joking? Serious question. Are you just trolling?
>
>You used Pete's words about not wanting to make a spectacle of
>it, and then used the actions of another person as your
>rationale for why Pete's words weren't the high road.
>
It's leap to buy the "leaked" posting no matter how much you want to believe it.
>You are definitionally holding Pete accountable for someone
>else's actions to reach that conclusion.
>
He is responsible you are bending over backwards to cover for Pete. Ok lets go out on your limb and say Pete shared something with a friend he couldn't trust you think that makes Pete innocent ?
Need more help ? If my friend has text where I say I don't want this in the press and he post it on the internet anyway it means we were not friends ?
Still fuzzy ? Ok If I send my friends a text where I tell the father I don't want him to look bad in front of his daughter and my friend post that, it means Pete is so clueless that the person he calls a friend is an enemy and he didn't know it until he posted without his permission.
>So, again, you have to just be ribbing me at this point.
>
ribbing ? Pete's friend posted this around the time the Vanity Fair stuff came out.
>
>Yeah we've covered this. You saw a spec in the flour and
>decided the whole bag was bad. You're caping way to hard
>against clear facts in evidence.
>
You caping way to hard for Pete is he your favorite comedian or something.
>
>Two separate things, and once again, your framing here is
>telling. Why not ask me when I stopped beating my wife?
>
You believe Pete's friend posted this on his own, I'm trying to figure out why anyone would fall for that.
>-Pete sending his friend a message:
>
>Of course I believe he sent his friend the message. That's not
>just want friends do, it's part of what friends are for. Yo,
>check THIS shit! You see what I'm dealing with? Etc.
>
Ok now it comes out you crated some kind of best buddy fantasy where innocent Pete was just talking with his right hand man, and that good close friend decided to post it without Pete's approval. Yep that makes sense in bizarro world.
>So yeah, friends share shit like that. it's just that most of
>us aren't famous. So there's no reason to think that Pete
>didn't send the texts to his friend of his own volition. I've
>sent and received similar.
Oh yeah that works, never.
>-Pete's friend posted them
>
>I have no idea. This is why I asked if you had evidence that
>he did.
>
Ok maybe you missed this so I will type it again, evidence from a deleted post ? smh
>So, to be clear, do you actually have evidence of this? Or are
>you just making an assertion that's convenient for your biased
>perspective? I have my suspicions, but instead of making the
>assumption, I asked.
>
The evidence is "a message from Pete"
It doesn't matter because nothing will be enough.
>But again, you framed this in a way that makes the answer to
>that fairly clear.
>
It's clear you will fall for anything. Pete could say he will grow wings and fly to meet Kanye and you would look up.
>
>LMAO I didn't say that at ALL. Again: you engage in a very
>disingenuous way.
It's only two ways the text could get posted ether with Petes approval or without.
>>You didn't talk about Pete's friend and what he did until I
>>brought it up again, but you spent time talking about me and
>>what I'm doing.
>
>...because what Pete's friend did after the fact had nothing
>to do with what Pete said.
>
If Pete's friend is posting the text messages with Pete's approval it means the talk about keeping it private was fake .So yes it has something to do with what Pete said. That is way too easy, no need to explain.
>And I addressed the way you engage, because... I'm, you know,
>talking to you. But you seem to have a real problem with being
>called out on the way you engage. That's a you problem.
Nah that's your deflection crutch. You wouldn't need that if you could make your case. It's smoke screen filler, that why you spend so much time on it.
>>Evidence for a deleted post ? You need evidence but you
>>brought the "leaked" story. The same guy who posted Pete's
>>tribute to Bob Saget , posted the text messages. I have no
>>evidence but I did read the Pete Kanye txt messages,
>started
>>with a message from Pete.
>
>So, again, to be clear, you don't have evidence that Pete told
>his friend to post those, correct?
>
Evidence of a deleted post ?
>Do you understand that sending a message to someone is not the
>same as telling them to put it out to the public?
>
>I doubt explaining that would do any good, because I don't
>think you have a problem, grasping this. You just can't get
>past your bias enough to have an objective opinion. This is
>something you continually demonstrate.
>
lol It's not bias it's called stating the obvious, common sense. You believe Pete was going to meet up with Kanye, you believe Pete's friend just posted some txt messages his buddy sent to him without approval. That is naïve and gullible.
>
>No, it's not. Sorry your capacity for nuance diminishes when
>you have a bias. I get it, but it's good practice to at least
>try to override that.
>
It's called the high road for a reason.
>
>Wrong again. The waste of time here is expecting a reasonable
>discussion from you. But again,you really don't like to look
>at the way you choose to engage a subject, so of course you
>don't think it's relevant. But it's cool. You're a dishonest
>interlocutor, after all, and nobody who is that really cares.
>
Lol this has nothing to do with me, let demonstrate so you can learn.
Answer these questions without talking about me. Let me start by saying excuses, justification, earned and deserved does not make something the high road, now with that said here are the questions
"I’m in LA for the day if you wanna stop being a little internet bitch boy and talk" -Pete
Is that the high road ?
"You don’t scare me bro, your actions are so pussy and embarrassing." Pete
Is that the high road ?
"If you continue to press me like you have for the past six months I’m gonna stop being nice.” - Pete
Is that the high road ?
---------------------------
Signature
|
Printer-friendly copy 
Email this topic to a friend
General Discussion
#/media/File:Firefly.png)
