FIRST: I was not upset that a post was directed at my post for a comment I didn't make. If you read my post 743 I simply asked if the person was responding to me: "Huh? I don’t know who you are replying to but I have said nothing about Sessions."
I was just curious as the spat seems to be based on a usage mis-understanding. I was pretty sure about the usage but I had to be sure. A reply is to a post #. Whoever is in the to: gets pinged.
SECOND: I rarely check Pings and it looked like the response was to me. Thus my question (see above). Instead of getting a "no" or an explanation I got a snark. So yes, I snarked back.
I generally use a blank to: to reply to a troll’s post(I know, I know, I shouldn’t feed the trolls) without them getting pinged.
We’ve come a long way and have done too much good in these “Q” threads.
Somebody take the first step and apologize, then you two kiss and make up...no tongues.
THIRD: I apologize for being snarky back. I do not apologize for asking for clarification. I WILL NOT kiss another woman because I am not a lesbo. I consider issue closed now.
ah...sorry for being a buttinsky.
Your “part”, on the snarly subject and from start to finish, has been a class act. Period.
Posters are responsible for who the heck is in the “TO” line, not the receiver. Goose chasing for a comment # are hardly a requirement.
Similar to the over use of so many acronyms causing deciphering exchanges that take up more time and space than just spelling things out.