This is a serious twisting of my quote.
It is the direct implication your post made.
And if my posts REALLY seem THAT harsh to you, I'd suggest some self-help tapes.
Accusing others of not thinking, as you did in
this post, is not only harsh, but if I'm not mistaken it qualifies as flaming. I've seen other examples which should probably have been reported as well, but I don't really care enough to do anything about them.
Furthermore, "The plant poops O2."
Let's diagram that, shall we?
Subject: The plant
Verb: Poops
Object: 02
02 is the "impurity." So, as you can see, the definition certainly does fit. Or you can just ignore what has been proven obvious numerous times now, in numerous ways, & keep posting more obnoxious facepalm macros like you actually have a point.
Except that you didn't
say anything like "The plant poops O2" until long after the argument started. You initially attempted to rebut Mako's sentence, "
Plants don't poop and look how awesome they are," which uses the word as an
intransitive verb, by saying "That depends on how you define 'poop'" and "
You were using 'poop' as a verb," while
completely ignoring the fact that Mako's usage of the verb did not include an object. There is
no possible way the sentence "Plants poop" can be factually correct: Plants do not excrete faeces. A reference to the excretion of faeces is the only correct usage of the verb without an object. Therefore, pointing out that it is
metaphorically possible to say that plants excrete oxygen as a "correction" to Mako's post is
completely irrelevant.
And even if you
did say, "Plants poop O2," the fact is that it is completely incorrect on anything other than a metaphorical level. That usage certainly would not be accepted by any botanist. As has already been mentioned several times, the animal process to which it is analogous is respiration.
tl;dr: massive backpedal is massive, and you shouldn't have expected no one to call you on it.
And your sentence structure seemed to allude to me being a bad troll. It specifically said, "People care about what good trolls have to say," which, ignoring the fact that it makes no sense, establishes that we're talking about trolls. You immediately follow this up with something to the effect of, "but no one cares what you have to say."
Now, your meaning is ambiguious, but since we were already talking about trolls, it seemed the logical progression that "people didn't care what I said" because I wasn't a very good troll.
Explaining why you made your assumption doesn't make it any less of an assumption.
Your meaning was dubious, so I tried to figure out what it was meant to be, as best as I could. Hence the qualifier "I think," as opposed to "you are."
That negates what I said how? You were still making an assumption.
It pays to be grammar-savvy.
Too bad you're clearly not, since you haven't paid attention to how you and other people are using it.
M.I.L.F.: Ask someone else to back down.
Not going to happen, sorry.