1. I wrote a comment, summarizing 2 experts' views on "strategy".
2. You responded to my comment, quoting one line (Rumelt's definition), then saying something like "I've seen this error before." -- which made no sense because neither the definition you quoted, nor my full comment, made any reference to any error. Thus your comment seemed like trolling.
3. For some reason I responded (still in good faith) attempting to clarify.
4. Then you edited your comment, changing the meaning of your opening sentence to which I'd responded. (Note it is still illogical / incorrect, bc I never mentioned an error, but at least it's less ambiguous.)
5. Then others reading the thread for the 1st time saw what looked like my inexplicable confusion about the ambiguity which you'd removed by editing your comment...
6. Then you double down here by claiming you don't know why I might be annoyed.
I fear I'm guilty of feeding a troll, and hate to post a boring meta comment like this, but that's what happened. What a waste of time.... Apologies to mods and other readers.
I apologize for writing something in haste that was open to misinterpretation. I think that I made the correct call to then edit it so the intended meaning was much clearer. Not for your sake in any way, but to better discuss a common issue in workplaces, with other people who will care about that, won't necessarily care about this rabbithole.
I'm sorry that you didn't grasp what I was trying to say, but I suggest that you don't throw words like "troll" and "pretending not to understand" around so freely. It's not helpful. You're very defensive, and that language provokes the same response. Let's end this conversation already.
Exactly that. I have a clear memory of a presentation from about a year ago, the presenter claiming to have a strategy where there was none. it must be common.
IDK why chrisweekly is upset, but I was not criticising their first post.