User blog comment:NOBODY/Nitrome News: Aron Steed and the Plastic Plant/@comment-24707114-20150525131533/@comment-4628859-20150526153314

Oh, so that's what he meant! I had no clue what he meant by "personal", however; this would be your opinion on what he meant which might not necessarily be entirely what he meant completely (to avoid confusion, I'm not implying an animosity just stating a fact).

Perceived intention is rather interesting since one thing can look like another when all it is just a misunderstanding. When I wrote this post, my sole intention was just to make a sarcastic post to make the viewers of the Nitrome Wiki laugh and had no other motive. Because of this, if one claims that I am mocking Aaron Steed, then they are technically wrong because that intention was never intended. But because they perceive it is mocking, then to them it is indeed mocking making whoever reads this blog post, and whatever opinion they form of it, becoming true to them. Now in regard to what is actually true, only my intentions when I wrote this are valid because I knew why I wrote this while the truth of other intentions is based on their opinions whose truth is subjective.

Now having said that, we can apply the same thing to Frosty's tweet to Aaron Steed regarding this blog post. One could argue, seeing negatively, that Frosty sent this tweet knowing that Aaron Steed would have a negative reaction and become angry and therefore he sent that tweet to provoke. But then one could also argue, seeing this positively, that he sent that tweet to Aaron thinking that he would find it humorous and therefore have the blog post appreciated. Which then is right? The answer would be neither since only Frosty's actual intentions would be true and not the perceived intentions of others swayed by their opinions.

From what I read one day, this seems similar to an instance of "devil's proof", but that's just an aside.