I get not watching the video, I didn’t, but why reply then? It’s obvious you would be off the mark. Also, sometimes the description is enough to get what a video is about, here it was.
I only opened the embedded player, I didn’t even bother wasting an actual click on that video. And why reply? Because they’ve made a stupid point about not having watched the video. That’s why. If he wanted to make a point he could’ve cited an article with the relevant tidbits instead.
Removed by mod
Here’s what the video is based on: https://signal.org/bigbrother/cd-california-grand-jury/
I get not watching the video, I didn’t, but why reply then? It’s obvious you would be off the mark. Also, sometimes the description is enough to get what a video is about, here it was.
I only opened the embedded player, I didn’t even bother wasting an actual click on that video. And why reply? Because they’ve made a stupid point about not having watched the video. That’s why. If he wanted to make a point he could’ve cited an article with the relevant tidbits instead.
They weren’t talking about your reply.
Then they should reply to whoever they meant to reply to.
They were very obviously speaking about the sequence of comments in the above thread and not about you specifically.
That makes even less sense since the previous guy did speak generally and not just about Signal.