Please explain how you got there, because I'm at a loss. Both examples involve using the CLI. The GitHub version I ran through actually includes more CLI steps. How could that possibly have been my intention?

Your references to clicking repeatedly, and the general fact that github.com's innovation is the GUI it puts on top of a git workflow.

I'm mystified about what's going on right now.

Both versions involve clicking.

Both versions involve command-line steps.

The difference is that the GitHub version requires more of both, needlessly. That's the point of what I wrote. That's the only point.

I don't understand this context where I'm being forced to defend an argument that's been foisted upon me and that I never made and never even thought of trying to make.

I'm sorry you don't understand it, but you don't get to ignore the implications that spawn off of your argument just because they're inconvenient.

What? You get to imagine some bad argument that would make it most convenient for you, and then demand that I defend that argument, as if it were one that I wanted to make? This is what I'm responsible for? Dealing with someone who resorts to strawmanning the person/idea at the other end when challenged?

I'm not imagining it, and that's the problem you're running into. It's a consequence of what you said.

It's not a direct consequence of anything that was said. It's a possible implication - in the conversational sense of implication, not the logical sense - but those get to be disclaimed.

His stance is literally that using a GUI is harder. That isn't a consequence, it's his core position.

FWIW, I certainly didn't read his comment that way, and in light of his explicit denial that that's what he intended maybe you should reconsider whether there are alternate interpretations available.

Are you reading some of the other comment threads he's participating in? It seems like he's taking this whole thing very personally, and it's hard to pin down exactly what he's trying to say when he won't calm down.

He wants me to call him, as if escalating this will be worth it...

He didn't even answer your very reasonable question above. Don't you wonder why that is?

> Are you reading some of the other comment threads he's participating in? It seems like he's taking this whole thing very personally, and it's hard to pin down exactly what he's trying to say when he won't calm down.

Feeling misinterpreted can be very personal. That said, in both my initial reading and my re-reading you come off worse than he does.

> He wants me to call him, as if escalating this will be worth it...

Sometimes text-conversation-on-the-internet escalates when neither party intends it, and switching to other modalities can be valuable. That said, it's not at all clear to me that it's a good idea here compared to dropping it.

> He didn't even answer your very reasonable question above. Don't you wonder why that is?

I presume it's because it got lost in the noise.

Heh, you presume I care how I come off in your interpretation...

I presumed you'd value a third-party perspective, particularly as you seemed to be appealing to it in the previous comment. I don't think you care much about me in particular beyond that. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

It's literally not my stance. And I've literally said that it's not my stance—in a comment (that should have never been necessary to begin with) meant to remove all doubt. And you know this.

To continue saying otherwise (explicitly, even) is a case of outright intellectual dishonesty.

It's you backing off of a claim you clearly now know is nonsense once someone challenged you on it.

My phone number is listed on my home page. Please give me a call.

Why on God's green earth would I ever give you a call???

The patch version only involves clicking when sending an email with an attachment involves clicking, right?