Well, this got to a second page, so it's time to explain the obvious. Ahem...
Sar-ca-sm!
It's not that people thought I was being serious. It's who thought I was being serious that disappoints me. I did this to make a point. None of you were listening to me when I was being direct, and it should say something that I actually got more responses from a fake inflammatory witchhunt that I put together in two minutes than any well-written article here has gotten.
Once again, Steer, you prove that you have very little experience outside of your own little fish bowl.
The fact is, time and time again, someone posts this exact same example on some message board completely FREE of sarcasm. If you wallow in the mud with pigs, you should expect to be treated as one.
But you post still makes no sense. How does correcting the misinformed opinion you stated that P&T are exposers contribute any meaningful information to the question as to whether or not E is engaging in exposure?
It adds nothing. They are two completely different situations - whether the statement is made with sarcasm or not - and fails to address the issue at all. There were several posts regarding the definition of exposure and its relation to the E tutorials. So to rationalize the need for this post, or to claim you were using someone's words against them is sheer folly.
It is clear you hold E in high regard and will defend them regardless of the logic or the merit of your arguments. That passion is to be commended. But this blind passion has led a lot of otherwise bright people to do some very stupid things. May I suggest you open both eyes wide, think with your mind as well as your heart, and look at these issues with objectivity instead of knee jerk defensiveness.
Brad Henderson