Well initially it was. Later down this thread in my second reply I was just trying to point out why it got the reception it got. As I said initially, I agree with the sentiment, it was just not well put at first, even I misread it. I get you now.
You should’ve probably responded with something like this from the start, but I’m glad it was my misunderstanding your message, not you advocating for what I, along with some others apparently, interpreted from it.
Sorry about the tone in my first reply. I hope you see it came from a well meaning place in defense of safety in terms of staying alive and unharmed, not in opposition to being bold, as the inverse of “safe”.
We lose a lot in the translation when our only medium is text, and we are all from across the globe, trying to communicate in a language that is foreign to me and many others, I bet. But c’est la vie.
Well initially it was. Later down this thread in my second reply I was just trying to point out why it got the reception it got. As I said initially, I agree with the sentiment, it was just not well put at first, even I misread it. I get you now.
You should’ve probably responded with something like this from the start, but I’m glad it was my misunderstanding your message, not you advocating for what I, along with some others apparently, interpreted from it.
Sorry about the tone in my first reply. I hope you see it came from a well meaning place in defense of safety in terms of staying alive and unharmed, not in opposition to being bold, as the inverse of “safe”.
We lose a lot in the translation when our only medium is text, and we are all from across the globe, trying to communicate in a language that is foreign to me and many others, I bet. But c’est la vie.