No, not at all. I thought we were having a conversation.
Once they finalize it and all everyone has signed, then they will release the details.
I mean that’s what you said, which just seemed the contradict what was said in the story, …
The union is so far being mum on the details of the agreement, which will likely emerge in the next few days prior to the union’s ratification vote.
, so I mentioned that in the hope that you would elaborate on that, by either saying you’re incorrect, or that the story was incorrect for some reason.
If someone’s seeking a correction doesn’t automatically mean they want argumentative combat with you, they just want to resolve the discrepancy.
Sometimes someone will argue a technicality just to try to appear the smarter person. You’re just being a pedant at this point.
You’re making assumptions on my intentions without any actual knowledge of me as a person to base them on.
My life is not so minimal that I feel the need to prove my intelligence to strangers on the Internet. All I was looking for was social interaction and conversation (and in this case, clarification) which you know, is what Lemmy is supposed to be about.
I mean that’s what you said, which just seemed the contradict what was said in the story, …
But it doesn’t, though. The article says the details will likely emerge. Again, that doesn’t mean announced or released by SAG-AFTRA. The writer of the article is not a spokesperson for SAG-AFTRA.
, so I mentioned that in the hope that you would elaborate on that, by either saying you’re incorrect, or that the story was incorrect for some reason.
Exactly, you’re looking to win an argument. Neither what I said nor the article are incorrect. They are different statements.
So you didn’t quote the part where I said I was just looking for clarification, and not attacking.
I’m really not trying to argue with you, so please don’t put intentions into my mouth that I didn’t have.
Again, that doesn’t mean announced or released by SAG-AFTRA.
Does it mean it’s not either. I’m making the assumption that they’re going to announce days beforehand so their base knows what they’re voting for.
The writer of the article is not a spokesperson for SAG-AFTRA.
Because writers never ask questions of spokespersons, either on or off the record, and get information that’s accurate that they would put in their story, right?
I mean, this is really blowing all out of intention/proportion. I was just trying to find out if you were some kind of insider who knew what you were speaking about, to learn something new and different about the subject being discussed. I wasn’t trying to publicly embarrass you, was just seeing that what you were saying was different than what the article was saying.
Edit: I just got the information I needed off of CNN, where they listed what was in the agreement.
So you didn’t quote the part where I said I was just looking for clarification, and not attacking.
Why would I quote the part I’m not responding to? And it’s not like your comment is hidden. It’s right above my comment for anyone to see…
Does it mean it’s not either. I’m making the assumption that they’re going to announce days beforehand so their base knows what they’re voting for.
Yep, you’re making assumptions. This is also not like an election. There’s no 'base" to tell. The people that vote will be told what they need internally.
Because writers never ask questions of spokespersons, either on or off the record, and get information that’s accurate that they would put in their story, right?
Yes, they ask questions and the spokesperson tells them what they need/want to. And off the record wouldn’t be published. What are you not understanding?
I was just trying to find out if you were some kind of insider who knew what you were speaking about, to learn something new and different about the subject being discussed. I wasn’t trying to publicly embarrass you, was just seeing that what you were saying was different than what the article was saying.
If you were trying to learn something new, you wouldn’t be trying to prove people wrong with your comments. Come on, man.
No, not at all. I thought we were having a conversation.
I mean that’s what you said, which just seemed the contradict what was said in the story, …
, so I mentioned that in the hope that you would elaborate on that, by either saying you’re incorrect, or that the story was incorrect for some reason.
If someone’s seeking a correction doesn’t automatically mean they want argumentative combat with you, they just want to resolve the discrepancy.
Sometimes someone will argue a technicality just to try to appear the smarter person. You’re just being a pedant at this point.
You’re making assumptions on my intentions without any actual knowledge of me as a person to base them on.
My life is not so minimal that I feel the need to prove my intelligence to strangers on the Internet. All I was looking for was social interaction and conversation (and in this case, clarification) which you know, is what Lemmy is supposed to be about.
And defending oneself is not being pedant.
But it doesn’t, though. The article says the details will likely emerge. Again, that doesn’t mean announced or released by SAG-AFTRA. The writer of the article is not a spokesperson for SAG-AFTRA.
Exactly, you’re looking to win an argument. Neither what I said nor the article are incorrect. They are different statements.
So you didn’t quote the part where I said I was just looking for clarification, and not attacking.
I’m really not trying to argue with you, so please don’t put intentions into my mouth that I didn’t have.
Does it mean it’s not either. I’m making the assumption that they’re going to announce days beforehand so their base knows what they’re voting for.
Because writers never ask questions of spokespersons, either on or off the record, and get information that’s accurate that they would put in their story, right?
I mean, this is really blowing all out of intention/proportion. I was just trying to find out if you were some kind of insider who knew what you were speaking about, to learn something new and different about the subject being discussed. I wasn’t trying to publicly embarrass you, was just seeing that what you were saying was different than what the article was saying.
Edit: I just got the information I needed off of CNN, where they listed what was in the agreement.
Have a good day.
Why would I quote the part I’m not responding to? And it’s not like your comment is hidden. It’s right above my comment for anyone to see…
Yep, you’re making assumptions. This is also not like an election. There’s no 'base" to tell. The people that vote will be told what they need internally.
Yes, they ask questions and the spokesperson tells them what they need/want to. And off the record wouldn’t be published. What are you not understanding?
If you were trying to learn something new, you wouldn’t be trying to prove people wrong with your comments. Come on, man.
You’re not being intellectually honest, because your response was to negate mine.
And, CNN broadcasted today, days early, what I was asking about.
I stand by what I’ve said.