Already did. You read mine, he answered the question based on his experience. That's more than enough for that question.
If that is the only thing he knew that is more than enough. I described in my post #40 why then he didn't eventually say much more. You don't even understand that I already described ALL aspects of what was answered and if not fully why not. You are still arguing that he answered nominally that question and I am already far away, as not only I have described as to why a nominal answer is of no interest (because there is no real alternative to it), but I also described the other two scenarios: Djokovic not knowing, in which case he couldn't possibly answer the question, or not understanding the question, which would explain why he would answer nominally (and obviously), but wouldn't venture into sharing his experience (assuming that he had any).
Say what you want, this was a decent response. Clearly you can't see that through some lens, I wonder what it is.
A "decent response"? I already told you, I don't need such tactics, if I was committed to what you claim. Clearly, you are wrong, regardless of how much you like your response.
Yes. Words are easily spun, especially by reporters. If this exchange had happened:
"Do you support domestic violence policies for the ATP?"
"Yes."
It would be seen as a condemnation of Zverev, even if not meant that way necessarily.
So a simple "yes" would have been construed as a condemnation of Zverev? Hilarious.
Even more hilarious: explaining at length about his good relationship with Zverev AND his family is seen from you as "neutral"
That is some next level pretzeling.
One did. The other was just me asking Djokovic about hitting linespeople with balls, a 1-to-1 parallel to the current situation. You refused to answer that example.
I will just copy my previous description of what is different.
Tennis_Hands said:
That is not true. The situations you presented do not differ only in technicalities.
They differ in the role of the person asked to answer the question. In the situation at hand he is
IMPARTIAL to the action. In both your examples h
e is either the perpetrator or the representative of the perpetrator. If you don't understand this, I am afraid that one of us in not doing very well with the comparisons.
If you can't distinguish between the bolded in orange and the bolded in blue, that is nothing that can be done to make you understand it.
"I challenge you to tell me how he could have committed more to Zverev's side, without lying"
"[I give an example on how he could have committed more]"
"That truly is a kindergarten level of reasoning."
You're hilarious, Hands. He barely said anything good about Zverev, just enough to give him the benefit of the doubt. Learn some critical thinking.
I asked you to give me a real example, not to tell me that Djokovic can go into fantasyland. Critical thinking is not fantasyland, and you are going exactly there with your example. You seem to think that as long as you write some words that is enough of an execution, regardless of how they stack up against the task that has been given to you.
I will repeat again: I requested a serious example, which is why I specifically said that Djokovic shouldn't be lying. While that condition treats the situation where he has malicious intent, fantasising would be equally problematic as his opinion will be similarly distorted (this time from not knowing the facts, but stating something nonetheless).
It was. Subtext exists, and you can't spot it. The question was about domestic violence in tennis while a specific player is going through an allegation of it. Clearly the question is asking about that incident.
Not only have I "spotted it" but my entire premise is based on the fact that, because I spotted it, I can claim that Djokovic made a mistake, by commenting on it. That is fairly obvious from about my third post on this matter, and that was a long time ago.
You repeat that "the question is asking about that incident" and I have by now repeatedly answered that whatever the underlying intention of the question was, Djokovic would have been smart to not answer it, but instead to answer the actual question itself.
Also, about the "specific player: that is not true: Basilashvili's case is also affected by that eventual regulation.
All in all, not only are you disoriented about the separate points regarding that question, but you are also not aware that the question is indeed brought to the fore by a more general concern. That Djokovic chose to talk about one specific example was a double fail.