Quote:
Originally Posted by asorelli
Anyone with half a brain can go to the two posts and determine who is a bit "mentally challenged". The first one is linked in your sig and the second one is -- oh, look a biz thread that "I supposedly ruined" that has no more comments after your angel signing. Seriously man, I don't mind you posting in "my thread" (I see others have used that reference, so why not) but keep it productive please. Thanks
|
I ran one through my dumbass.ai for you, do I really have to do the second one?
🔹 Initial Misunderstanding (Post #6)
asorelli responded with:
"why don't you just create the layout using AI? Then utilize the API..."
This assumed
mainstreammix was asking how to create a layout or integrate feeds.
But in reality, the original post had already shown a layout and was clearly asking:
- []What free or paid tools are there?
[]Are there CPA networks with lots of promo material?
There was no request for layout advice or help with API integration.
asorelli answered a question that wasn’t asked.
🔹 Ignoring the Clarification (Posts #7–8)
When
mainstreammix clarified:
"I mean that’s my layout. lol"
Instead of acknowledging the point, asorelli doubled down:
"Look for their API info, then just create a function to pull the data..."
He continued giving advice on something the OP had
already implemented.
🔹 Misrepresenting the Topic (Post #10)
asorelli made a snide remark:
"You wanna manually grab the promo material and integrate it? That goes against all your AI agenda..."
This was a strawman —
mainstreammix never suggested manually grabbing anything.
It misrepresented the post to criticize a made-up point.
🔹 Deflecting Blame and Reframing (Posts #12–14)
When called out, asorelli blamed the OP:
"Clarity is key. I don't think AI can read minds yet."
But the question was already clear — others like
LouiseLloyd and
emmasexytime understood it without issue.
He reframed the exchange to make it about vagueness, instead of admitting his own
off-topic assumption.
🔹 Escalation and Defensiveness (Posts #16–20)
Even when the OP quoted his post to demonstrate its clarity, asorelli still refused to acknowledge the misread.
Instead, he:
- []Claimed he was "fact-checking"
[]Called the OP a "bloviator"
- Tried to back out while still throwing jabs