We have, however, seen what you've written. You're very confident about what should have happened. You are indeed very free with your comments about what others should have done in any given situation.
I suppose that we are meant to imagine, from the knowing tone of your comments, that your shirt bulges with muscles and chest hair, and that you can kill with your eyebrows.
Oh, what a pity you were not there to stop the bad guys with a well aimed handful of pocket lint, which is a deadly weapon in your hands.
“We have, however, seen what you’ve written. You’re very confident about what should have happened. You are indeed very free with your comments about what others should have done in any given situation.”
So, are we to presume that you are not confident of your opinions? Or is confidence a privilege to be restricted to yourself? (Always use the plural pronoun, to give the impression that one is speaking for a large group.)
“I suppose that we are meant to imagine, from the knowing tone of your comments, that your shirt bulges with muscles and chest hair, and that you can kill with your eyebrows.”
To be effective, a flame must have some connection with the truth, however tenuous. There is nothing in the use of firearms that presupposes any physical attributes beyond those required to aim and pull the trigger.
“Oh, what a pity you were not there to stop the bad guys with a well aimed handful of pocket lint, which is a deadly weapon in your hands.”
Ah, yes, it is patently obvious that having an opinion on social policy re the treatment of criminals demonstrates that one is a Walter Mitty. Oh, dear me, I’ve been outed.
I guess I could wait until you express an opinion and then chime in with a flame alleging that only a...well, some sort of discreditable individual...would express such an opinion, and objecting to the degree of confidence that I pretend to see in your comments, but I have better things to do with my time.
And to play me off the stage, Thomas Sowell: “It is amazing how many people think that they can answer an argument by attributing bad motives to those who disagree with them. Using this kind of reasoning, you can believe or not believe anything about anything, without having to bother to deal with facts or logic.”