You're utterly immune to logic.
It's neither. It's an exception. The word "except" might be a hint there.
Imagine this. You ask, "did you get everything on the shopping list?". I reply, "yes, except for the apples." Later, you say, "where the hell are the apples? You said you got everything on the list. The "except" part was a qualification, not a denial!"
[You] argued that it was inappropriate for a certain person to say a certain thing (which, in context, is saying shut up since the "certain thing" was the entire content of Phroggy's post)
It looks like you are inadvertently finally answering my question. I asked you what you though "say so" was referring to, and you are claiming here that it means "say all that which Phroggy said". You have it wrong. It actually only refers to the tail end of Phroggy's first paragraph, about the strategy having failed.
"It is possible that they could convey the same message" which is an acknowledgement that your post conveyed the message "shut up" even though you now claim you didn't say that.
I really must have you pegged, because as I wrote that, I strongly suspected that you would respond in this way.
I have identified you as someone with a black-and-white mentality, unable to see grey. For you, "could convey" is incomprehensible. You have to interpret it as "conveys" to make it fit your point. The idea that A could convey B in another context, but not this one, is beyond you. Furthermore, the idea of your opponent politely making a concession to you, granting that something you've said is not entirely stupid because it could make sense in a different context, is not an idea you can grasp. Instead, you interpret it as your opponent letting something slip and then slyly retracting it.
I don't have a "point" as such.
Glad we can agree on something.
Sadly, I also was pretty sure that you'd go for that low blow. And yet I said it anyway, as a gift to you. It's a sign of how badly you're doing that I can hand you rhetorical flourishes on a plate, without fear.
Yes, it affects your credibility, since those with a valid argument don't need to resort to such tactics.
It's not a matter of need. I've already given an example where a valid statement was made, accompanied by a personal attack. Will you conclude that "such tactics" prove that the person has no argument? Was invading Poland therefore OK in your book?
Oh, I made a spelling mistake. Woe is me! Have mercy, ChameleonDave, have mercy.
Woe, eh? The rest of your post is far more woeful. This is reflected in the fact that I devoted a mere two words to correcting the spelling. You, of course, would rather now talk about that, to deflect attention from your faulty arguments.