I literally have no idea what you're even talking about.

Looking back over the thread, I think I did in fact misunderstand you. It seems I thought the contexts of posts was different than it was. That doesn't happen too often to me, but looking back, it seems it happened here. Regardless of what I thought I saw, I should have been more explanatory in my first post, rather than accusatory. So even if I had been correct in my reading comprehension, I should have been more diplomatic

For all errors I want to offer my apology.

Since I made a big todo about it, I will explain what I thought I saw.

This began with the first response in this thread, where it was

This BS of “It was staged” is exhausting. It was a miss, period.

Then came a very reasonable response of how and why it might have been staged, which I agreed was sensible. It turns out this response was yours, yet I very much thought your response was in opposition to this, which I'll get to.

Then came:

there's nothing wrong with having this theory.

Which was in response to your hypothetical in support of it, and then came a response that I thought was in opposition to this supporting response:

The firefighter and his family deserve honor and reverence for what they have suffered. Anyone who denies this comes off as unhinged

This sounds to me like you are chastising, and calling unhinged, anyone who is not focusing on the "honor and reverence deserved by the firefighter and his family."

Since any idea of this being a staged event has some moral difficulties to deal with regarding the death, or potential death, of the firefighter, such a castigation suggests that we should not be entertaining these ideas because it neglects the "deserved respect". In other words, that the thing that must be focused on is the respect of the firefighter, and if you entertain any other ideas, you are unhinged and should stfu.

I will now admit that I responded to this sentence without reading the rest of the post it was contained in. It was late, I was tired, and I have heard so many times in the past few days how we shouldn't be talking about this, mostly because of the death of the firefighter.

I got fed up, and I took it out on you, even though in full context of what you said, I do not now think you deserved it at all. On the contrary, I fully agree with you.

I have since edited my first post to include my misunderstanding.

Again, I apologize.

I literally have no idea what you're even talking about.

Looking back over the thread, I think I did in fact misunderstand you. It seems I thought the contexts of posts was different than it was. That doesn't happen too often to me, but looking back, it seems it happened here. Regardless of what I thought I saw, I should have been more explanatory in my first post, rather than accusatory. So even if I had been correct in my reading comprehension, I should have been more diplomatic

For all errors I want to offer my apology.

Since I made a big todo about it, I will explain what I thought I saw.

This began with the first response in this thread, where it was

This BS of “It was staged” is exhausting. It was a miss, period.

Then came a very reasonable response of how and why it might have been staged, which I agreed was sensible. It turns out this response was yours, yet I very much thought your response was in opposition to this, which I'll get to.

Then came:

there's nothing wrong with having this theory.

Which was in response to your hypothetical in support of it, and then came a response that I thought was in opposition to this supporting response:

The firefighter and his family deserve honor and reverence for what they have suffered. Anyone who denies this comes off as unhinged

This sounds to me like you are chastising, and calling unhinged, anyone who is not focusing on the "honor and reverence deserved by the firefighter and his family."

Since any idea of this being a staged event has some moral difficulties to deal with regarding the death, or potential death, of the firefighter, such a castigation suggests that we should not be entertaining these ideas because it neglects the "deserved respect". In other words, that the thing that must be focused on is the respect pf the firefighter, and if you entertain any other ideas, you are unhinged and should stfu.

I will now admit that I responded to this sentence without reading the rest of the post it was contained in. It was late, I was tired, and I have heard so many times in the past few days how we shouldn't be talking about this, mostly because of the death of the firefighter.

I got fed up, and I took it out on you, even though in full context of what you said, I do not now think you deserved it at all. On the contrary, I fully agree with you.

I have since edited my first post to include my misunderstanding.

Again, I apologize.

I literally have no idea what you're even talking about.

Looking back over the thread, I think I did in fact misunderstand you. It seems I thought the contexts of posts was different than it was. That doesn't happen too often to me, but looking back, it seems it happened here. Regardless of what I thought I saw, I should have been more explanatory in my first post, rather than accusatory. So even if I had been correct in my reading comprehension, I should have been more diplomatic

For all errors I want to offer my apology.

Since I made a big todo about it, I will explain what I thought I saw.

This began with the first response in this thread, where it was

This BS of “It was staged” is exhausting. It was a miss, period.

Then came a very reasonable response of how and why it might have been staged, which I agreed was sensible. It turns out this response was yours, yet I very much thought your response was in opposition to this, which I'll get to.

Then came:

there's nothing wrong with having this theory.

Which was in response to your hypothetical in support of it, and then came a response that I thought was in opposition to this supporting response:

The firefighter and his family deserve honor and reverence for what they have suffered. Anyone who denies this comes off as unhinged

This sounds to me like you are chastising, and calling unhinged, anyone who is not focusing on the "honor and reverence deserved by the firefighter and his family."

Since any idea of this being a staged event has some moral difficulties to deal with regarding the death, or potential death, of the firefighter, such a castigation suggests that we should not be entertaining these ideas because it neglects the "deserved respect". In other words, that the thing that must be focused on is the respect, and if you entertain any other ideas, you are unhinged and should stfu.

I will now admit that I responded to this sentence without reading the rest of the post it was contained in. It was late, I was tired, and I have heard so many times in the past few days how we shouldn't be talking about this, mostly because of the death of the firefighter.

I got fed up, and I took it out on you, even though in full context of what you said, I do not now think you deserved it at all. On the contrary, I fully agree with you.

I have since edited my first post to include my misunderstanding.

Again, I apologize.

I literally have no idea what you're even talking about.

Looking back over the thread, I think I did in fact misunderstand you. It seems I thought the contexts of posts was different than it was. That doesn't happen too often to me, but looking back, it seems it happened here. Regardless of what I thought I saw, I should have been more explanatory in my first post, rather than accusatory. So even if I had been correct in my reading comprehension, I should have been more diplomatic

For all errors I want to offer my apology.

Since I made a big todo about it, I will explain what I thought I saw.

This began with the first response in this thread, where it was

This BS of “It was staged” is exhausting. It was a miss, period.

Then came a very reasonable response of how and why it might have been staged, which I agreed was sensible. It turns out this response was yours, yet I very much thought your response was in opposition to this, which I'll get to.

Then came:

there's nothing wrong with having this theory.

Which was in response to your hypothetical in support of it, and then came a response that I thought was in opposition to this supporting response:

The firefighter and his family deserve honor and reverence for what they have suffered. Anyone who denies this comes off as unhinged

This sounds to me like you are chastising, and calling unhinged, anyone who is not focusing on the "honor and reverence deserved by the firefighter and his family."

Since any idea of this being a staged event has some moral difficulties to deal with regarding the death, or potential death, of the firefighter, such a castigation suggests that we should not be entertaining these ideas because it neglects the "deserved respect". In other words, that the thing that must be focused on is the respect, and if you entertain any other ideas, you are unhinged and should stfu.

I will now admit that I responded to this sentence without reading the rest of the post it was contained in. It was late, I was tired, and I have heard so many times in the past few days how we shouldn't be talking about this, mostly because of the death of the firefighter.

I got fed up, and I took it out on you, even though in full context of what you said, I do not now think you deserved it at all. On the contrary, I fully agree with you.

I have since edited my first post to include my misunderstanding.

Again, I apologize.

I literally have no idea what you're even talking about.

Looking back over the thread, I think I did in fact misunderstand you. It seems I thought the contexts of posts was different than it was. That doesn't happen too often to me, but looking back, it seems it happened here. Regardless of what I thought I saw, I should have been more explanatory in my first post, rather than accusatory. So even if I had been correct in my reading comprehension, I should have been more diplomatic

For all errors I want to offer my apology.

Since I made a big todo about it, I will explain what I thought I saw.

This began with the first response in this thread, where it was

This BS of “It was staged” is exhausting. It was a miss, period.

Then came a very reasonable response of how and why it might have been staged, which I agreed was sensible. It turns out this response was yours, yet I very much thought your response was in opposition to this, which I'll get to.

Then came:

there's nothing wrong with having this theory.

Which was in response to your hypothetical in support of it, and then came a response that I thought was in opposition to it

The firefighter and his family deserve honor and reverence for what they have suffered. Anyone who denies this comes off as unhinged

This sounds to me like you are chastising, and calling unhinged, anyone who is not focusing on the "honor and reverence deserved by the firefighter and his family."

Since any idea of this being a staged event has some moral difficulties to deal with regarding the death, or potential death, of the firefighter, such a castigation suggests that we should not be entertaining these ideas because it neglects the "deserved respect". In other words, that the thing that must be focused on is the respect, and if you entertain any other ideas, you are unhinged and should stfu.

I will now admit that I responded to this sentence without reading the rest of the post it was contained in. It was late, I was tired, and I have heard so many times in the past few days how we shouldn't be talking about this, mostly because of the death of the firefighter.

I got fed up, and I took it out on you, even though in full context of what you said, I do not now think you deserved it at all. On the contrary, I fully agree with you.

I have since edited my first post to include my misunderstanding.

Again, I apologize.

I literally have no idea what you're even talking about.

Looking back over the thread, I think I did in fact misunderstand you. It seems I thought the sequence of posts was different than it was. Sometimes these threads branch so much that you think you're reading one line of thought, but in fact you didn't realize there was a node in there. That doesn't happen too often to me, but looking back, it seems it happened here. Regardless of what I thought I saw, I should have been more explanatory in my first post, rather than accusatory. So even if I had been correct in my reading comprehension, I should have been more diplomatic

For all errors I want to offer my apology.

Since I made a big todo about it, I will explain what I thought I saw.

This began with the first response in this thread, where it was

This BS of “It was staged” is exhausting. It was a miss, period.

Then came a very reasonable response of how and why it might have been staged, which I agreed was sensible. It turns out this response was yours, yet I very much thought your response was in opposition to this, which I'll get to.

Then came:

there's nothing wrong with having this theory.

Which was in response to your hypothetical in support of it, and then came a response that I thought was in opposition to it

The firefighter and his family deserve honor and reverence for what they have suffered. Anyone who denies this comes off as unhinged

This sounds to me like you are chastising, and calling unhinged, anyone who is not focusing on the "honor and reverence deserved by the firefighter and his family."

Since any idea of this being a staged event has some moral difficulties to deal with regarding the death, or potential death, of the firefighter, such a castigation suggests that we should not be entertaining these ideas because it neglects the "deserved respect". In other words, that the thing that must be focused on is the respect, and if you entertain any other ideas, you are unhinged and should stfu.

I will now admit that I responded to this sentence without reading the rest of the post it was contained in. It was late, I was tired, and I have heard so many times in the past few days how we shouldn't be talking about this, mostly because of the death of the firefighter.

I got fed up, and I took it out on you, even though in full context of what you said, I do not now think you deserved it at all. On the contrary, I fully agree with you.

I have since edited my first post to include my misunderstanding.

Again, I apologize.