Being involved and being directly involved are two different things. Being not involved in the slightest would imply a lack of all involvement, information, and connection. I was involved the moment I was dragged into the situation . . . Being involved and being directly involved are two different things. Being not involved in the slightest would imply a lack of all involvement, information, and connection. I was involved the moment I was dragged into the situation. I think you misunderstand what I mean by confrontation; that or you and I have two different definitions of confrontation. Merriam-Webster describes it as “to face especially in challenge” and Cambridge describes it as “to deal with a difficult problem, situation, or person” – both of these definitions describe the situation.
. . .
An indirect and direct confrontation may be different, but both can cause uncomfortable feelings to be unearthed. Both are still objectively confrontations. You obviously think direct confrontation is better and I don’t entirely disagree, but in this situation I felt an indirect one was better for all parties involved. What is done is done, I can’t lament over what would happen if I had confronted it directly instead.
<Snipped quote by Fabricant451>
I think some blood and a firm handshake afterwards is better than infinitely throwing shade in here without ever coming to a resolution, only coming to the conclusion that 'the other side is a retard and I'm mucho smart' but hey, what do I know. The real bother here is that people not involved with the given situation are commenting on it as though they were and are, behind the scenes, saying shit that I find to be pretty damn disrespectful - if you said them to their face, that'd earn so much more respect, but here we are.
<Snipped quote by Didgeridont>
gr8 b8 m8, r8 8/8
<Snipped quote by Andreyich>
God no. World wars are catastrophic wastes of precious resources.