Yes, either that or they just start ranting. There was this guy over on AV Club yesterday, who layed into the writer on the basis that he was making fun of a film that no one at AV Club had seen. When some of us pointed out that they had seen it, and there was a link to a full review right there in the post, he lost…

I guess, but I’m not a Deadspin reader at all. I didn’t even notice which site I was on until I posted a comment and realised I was in the greys - I think I had the impression that I was on Splinter. So you don’t have to be a Deadspin regular to get what they’re going for here.

I don’t entirely disagree with you there. I think this could have been done a little better. But most people figured it out where the joke was without too many problems, and those that didn’t, well, a quick look at the comments is all that’s needed. I just can’t get behind Plissken’s idea that this was reckless,…

I can understand being confused at first. What annoys me is when someone makes a comment clearly based on a mistake, and then continues to move the goalposts in order to insist that they were right all along.

I think you’re a little confused about what happened with this. ABC didn’t “run with the story”. There wasn’t a story at all. Somehow some text got mixed up in the system they use for those graphics and the result was briefly displayed onscreen. Nobody at ABC ever thought it was a real story. That calls into question…

That’s the spirit!

To be completely honest I’m not sure why this peice was done in this way, unless it was to intentionally confuse people.

But the fact that it was a mistake is the point of this in the first place.

Pretty sure the point of this peice is to make fun of ABC’s mistake. Just publishing a screengrab of a graphic on a TV channel isn’t usually how you’d report a story, unless the graphic is the story.

I just did a google news search for ‘Manafort’ and the second result linked to this:

I guess we can consider those witnesses well and truly tampered-with.

Grow the fuck up.

I did not seek to make excuses for his actions. That wasn’t the intention of my comment, as I have tried to explain. To seek to understand - even in a way that may be misguided - is not to excuse.

That wasn’t what I intended in my comment, and I’m sorry if it seemed that way. I just tried to understand someone’s motivation for such outrageously awful behavior in a way that went a little further beyond. “He’s an asshole.” Maybe I was wrong to do that - I’d be happy to debate that with you. In fact, someone made…

How on earth have things escalated to this point? I’m completely baffled by your behavior here today. Ranting and swearing and calling me names simply because I said something you didn’t agree with - quite incredible.

No, I wasn’t sitting in an office chair when I wrote that. And I didn’t ‘diagnose’ him with anything, I just said he seemed mentally ill - sorry you found that so objectionable that you flew into a fit of expletive-filled rage. Maybe you should take a look at your own behavior if this is how you react to comments you…

My bad.

Not quite what I was looking for, but exactly what I expected. You are a real... character.

Well, your argument seems to be heavily based on the notion that no one at the AV Club had seen the movie, despite how obvious it was that they had. Since you were clearly wrong about that, what I’d like now is for you to admit that you were wrong about everything you’ve posted here today. Then I’d like you to…

Okay, but it’s fairly obvious that it links to an AV Club review of the movie from the text in which it is embeded. In any case, I don’t know why you’d assume that this site hadn’t reviewed this particular release - why wouldn’t they?