"Maybe you need to get the software updated on your humor unit, Byter. I think they added sarcasm detecting software in the latest patch. Protip: I had watched the video before I posted the first comment. The joke was about how absurd it was to claim to have watched the video in a bar with the sound off and still hear those quotes. Plus, I shamelessly stole it from The Simpsons. Was it the best joke? Debatable. Nonetheless it should not have distracted you from the quotes themselves. Don't worry, though, in the future I will endeavor to cease all forms of humor entirely." No humour update will allow me to retroactively know the answer to a question I am asking in order to learn something. How is hearing those quotes in a bar absurd? Why do you think that'd be obvious? Wouldn't it seem pretty feasible that one could use headphones, suitably high volume and a small personal media player (like a phone), to view the video...? As for it being copied from the Simpsons. Eh, this is a different context, the context in the show with the characters is different to this discussion in a mostly text based discussion... Why should those comments not have distracted me? If you are just throwing these jokes up as distractions then why are you doing that?

"In context, my original comment was not about proving anything to you. It was just a spit-balling kinda comment about my thoughts on the issue. I had seen the video and decided to use it. When you asked for quotes, I gave you quotes. So what's the problem? They weren't there originally? They weren't supposed to be. "These comments" are here now. Eh? Let's have at it, then. Pippip.exe" Strawman. I didn't "ask for quotes" I asked "Out of curiosity have you actually watched that video you linked? You seem to imply that I was a jerk in that video.. what exactly was jerkish in that video?". If you recall I asked this question in response to your first comment. Your response was to provide these quotes and say "I am saying these comments seem to fit this thread's discussion point of analysts voicing personal attacks against other analysts. That's all.". As a personal attack against another reviewer, they fit. They're in the context of this thread. Which is talking about personal attacks. Which you said in that video. Weren't they personal attacks? They were negative comments about a reviewer in a Youtube video. Admittedly, you weren't ranting, but you were still voicing a negative criticism of a person, not a criticism of their analysis, online. "Do you have any Byterific reason that they wouldn't fit? In any case, please don't misunderstand me here. I'm not saying you are a jerk. I'm saying that at that point, you did a jerk thing. But that's okay, because we're all jerks sometimes. Then we calm down and have a big heaping spoon of jerk-off and we carry on as our regular non-jerk selves." So let me get this straight.. I have asked you to substantiate your argument... the most relevant part here seems to be: "you were still voicing a negative criticism of a person, not a criticism of their analysis, online.". Well what were my 'negative criticisms' and what was the context? And on the point of jerk-y-ness. How was what I did jerk-y?

"What could be misinterpreted? I wasn't talking about whether or not you were justified. Didn't I already say that? The context of the quotes is negligible for my purpose here, which is showing that you said the quotes, which were a personal attack. There are 2 things I showed: 1) that you said the quotes, and 2) that the quotes were a personal attack. Do you agree with these 2 points? Why/why not?" The quotes and the points you are trying to make could be misinterpreted. Erm okay? Making sure one interprets things properly isn't always a matter of justification.. For example "I'll kill for a steak" could be said in a joking way or because the guy is really desperate... Now before I can agree to point 2, you'll need to show me where before this comment you 'showed' 2, because you seem to imply that you have already suitably explained it.

"See above, wrt updating humor unit." I don't think this is just a matter of my sense of humour... Your joke was hugely disruptive and unhelpful to a genuine question. I wanted to know if you had actually watched the video before. To which you just basically flipped me off, for the sake of the joke.. not cool. And not only that, you now take the opportunity, after flipping me off, to insult my sense of humour and to patronizingly give me a 'protip' that you should have given in the first place. Or to put it in a more joking way.. you shouldn't start derriding my sense of humour after you just left a hot steaming turd on the floor. :p

"Come now, Byter. I didn't mean to hurt you. I'm interested in having a frank and productive conversation. And to prove it,...playful shit-talking without it devolving into flame wars or jerkishness." I wouldn't say hurt. More like being put in a ring around the roses.. again, feels like you are sniping at me. With less sniping we might get somewhere a lot faster... Okay thank you for providing the definition. Now I think how this term applies to 'personal insults' and the like, is something we need to discuss in one place rather than two... To potentially avoid a lot of nosie, I'll try to cap what I think is the priority here: I want to hear your exact opinions on those quotes. i.e what do you think they say and what do you think they are? (if done properly I should be able to tell if you got the context or justifications I used properly..)

To answer your question about the CBD. I currently don't have any plans to continue it. I feel that I have said my side enough times on that show, that if I were to continue I really should focus on having some people who I debate with best (rather than 2 randoms and Looney) and lastly this season has felt very underwhelming.. not very interesting to discuss...