OK. But have you never heard a person say they were confused about why somebody does something, NOT because they do not understand why they do it, but because what they are doing is so insane that THAT is what they are confused about. Why people are insane. Why they make stupid comments. Now, I can also understand this. Why people say what they say. Why they are insane, even if for a moment. Psychological disorders, emotional outbursts, lots of reasons.
I am not actually confused, does his make sense. I know tons of people that make such a simple and easily understood comment. On the internet, that might not be as clear. I understand if my comment was taken out of context. Hopefully this sheds new light on my perception and position.
If you are confused about something, you can't possibly understand it. The two are mutually exclusive conditions.
But even allowing for your somewhat contradictory explanation, my words were specifically chosen to point out that I was interpreting your statement to mean what it looks like it means, and what the definition of the words used imply that it means.
Hence, my addition of the word "seem" in "even though you don't
seem to understand".
This means "appear". The appearances of your statement are very clear based on the
fact that being confused and having an understanding are mutually exclusive conditions.
But I
allowed for a possible misinterpretation of your words on
my part by making
sure to include that qualifier in my sentence. This is because, as they say, appearances can be deceiving.
So in any case, the truth of the matter, what any objective observer would have to attest to, is that I made a valid, although incorrect, interpretation of your statements and
allowed for my incorrectness by including the word "seem" in my interpretation.
this clearly indicates that:
1. It was not a label I was placing upon you. It was only a description of what my
perceptions about your "confusion" meant.
2. It was not an attack.