It's not superfluous to discuss a cultural influx that you brought into the conversation.
Seeing as how you wrote more content than necessary and you were discussing something I wasn't talking about on more than a surface-level scale, yes, I think it was sufficiently superfluous.
I wasn't interested in how the anime culture is becoming increasingly popular, I was wondering
why (which there is no actual explanation to as that's subjective to those who enjoy anime). That should have been a little more than clear by my initial response.
I'm aware of your assumptions, you made them rather clear. Also that was hardly a serious response. It was just a statement.
Based on the fact that users usually don't respond to a statement of that nature, I conjectured that you were mildly offended by that statement. After all, my joke was that of "weeaboo." Maybe it didn't offended you, but on a general scale I'd say my assumption was fairly justified.
We're both aware of the definition of hyperbole. You made no clarification of if you knew it was hyperbole, you just accessed it as a fact and made a statement affirming that it was incorrect.
That's simply because you affirmed it as your assertion, which is incorrect. I clarified on it by rationalizing it down to the general vicinity it actually covers.
You seems to think I don't use proper grammar or English since you imply that what I respond with doesn't make sense. It does make sense, the fact you don't understand or think parts or clearly defined thoughts don't make sense. It's not really defensive beyond a joking clarification.
That has nothing to do with proper grammar nor English in itself. That's comprehension. And that was said before I stated your statement didn't make much sense.
You're now clarifying on that after you assumed that I don't think you have adequate English.
It does make sense. Your responses are argumentative, both in approach and structure.
I do not state that you think this is an argument, I just stated that if you wish to avoid argument like you had previously indicated you ought to not over analyze people or dissect their responses.
My responses weren't argumentative in any regard up until this point. You seem to be getting tenses mixed up. They were argumentative after you responded to my first response because it came off to me as you getting defensive and as such argumentative. Naturally, I reacted accordingly.
As for over-analyzing: that's a bit irrelevant. I'm innately analytical. I did nothing but try to clarify myself as I stated previously. The fact that you pointed this out is a further indication that you thought I was being aggressive somehow.
You in no way have made that clear up until this point. You said previously your original post was anecdotal but you had no anecdote of any kind till this post. It's nice that you've actually give us the anecdote finally. The fact is I'm glad you're are clarifying cause I really had no idea why you were posting until now due to lack of information aside from your joke.Which you ought to decide if you were making a joke or giving us an anecdote.
I was giving both a joke and an anecdote. The joke was the anecdote. Obscure? Maybe. But it's been there the entire time. I just further clarified myself.
We've established that. Your joke was hardly abrasive. You don't register a 2 on the scale of abrasiveness.
Generally speaking, I think this statement is false. It was abrasive in regards to using the term "weeaboo" derogatorily (though jokingly). Whether you considered it so or not is a perspective matter. You responded up until this point so I had considered it more or less abrasive.
Your apology is accepted. I hope we will converse again and I hope we have equally clarified ourselves to one another.
For the most part I believe we've clarified ourselves. And will do.
