Hans Amato claiming 3000 ng/dL Testosterone levels

alfredoolivas

“my first response in this thread is satirical.”
This is a retroactive clarification, not something evident from the original text. Satire normally signals itself through tone, exaggeration, or contradiction. When a comment reads as literal and only later gets reclassified as satire, the ambiguity is created by the author, not the reader. Explanation after the fact does not transform unclear writing into effective satire.

“you dont have a funny sense of humour so you wouldn't get this.”
This shifts responsibility away from the text and onto the reader. Disagreement is reframed as a personal deficiency, which makes the claim unfalsifiable. If understanding hinges on presumed familiarity with your personality or posting history, then the communication itself failed to stand on its own.

“secondly you keep saying things that I said , which I did not say.”
This is a serious accusation, but it is made without a single quotation to support it. If words were falsely attributed to you, demonstrating that would be straightforward. The absence of examples suggests that the issue is interpretation, not fabrication.

“my first reply to you in this thread has nothing much to do with Hans 3000ng/dl.”
This assertion conflicts with the observable context. Your comment appears within a thread explicitly centered on that topic, and it uses overlapping terminology. Context is established by placement and framing, not by later declarations of irrelevance. Simply insisting there is “nothing to do” with the topic does not negate the surrounding discussion.

“if you think my comment is somehow related to 3000ng/dl even when I say ‘normal’ androgens.”
Using the word “normal” does not automatically sever contextual links, especially when the discussion contrasts normal versus extreme values.

“you are selectively ignoring things ive specifically said.”
This imputes motive rather than identifying error. Claiming deliberate avoidance substitutes psychological speculation for argument. If something material was ignored, pointing to the exact sentence would resolve it immediately.

sunsunsun

@alfredoolivas no