I'm glad somebody else gets it. It was hyperbole and half-joking, but maybe it was a little bit of facetious counter-baiting?
Well, with the stuff that happened between you and Crow and Turncoat and whomever, a lot of the play and counter-play had to do with accusing one or the other on focusing on the wrong part (according to the accusatory party). It was just an interesting parallel that looked like it came about in this situation here.
Drama? Data-gouging? - so you would think i'm gaslighting crow, or you? or both?
It'd be an expensive waste of my time if it works out as well as... "expected". A lot of therapy tactics work from the patient being blind of what they are. - i guess it's more about how bad things are compared to how expensive it is. i'd think things were pretty bad if you were depressed or suicidal.
Your perspective seems to continue to expand while not covering all bases from making assumptive leaps left and right based on how you believe something to appear. A narrative instead of jabs would likely show where misconceptions are being made in a way that can be corrected with more ease. - i think that's a good thing(continuing to expand), cos it means i observe as things progress rather than making a snap judgment and working my analysis around it. i don't think i threw jabs, i just gave an honest assessment of what i think is happening.
As is, I personally find it difficult to trust your perspective when it's full of holes that have lead to assumptions instead of admission of said missing details, conflicts with my own view of the situation that lacks said holes, and from it relying specifically on the notion that somehow you have a better idea of what's going on than I do despite that. - but i don't know everything about either of you so of course i will assume. i always think i have a better idea of what's going on, the more i'm proven wrong the less arrogant i am, but i'm still pretty fucking arrogant.
Smart or not, it's relying on a set of criteria that's based almost entirely on guesswork and some character assessment that followed as a result of it. A lot of the perceived antagonism is in response to how much is being assumed and to what is being assumed. - it's not guesswork so much as seeing certain traits that are often linked with styles of thinking and propensities for certain behavior. whose 'perceived antagonism' are you referring to?
you know TC, i got the impression that crow no longer wanted me to take your accounts of her thought process as accurate from the last thread where i used your explanation of it 'being obvious she didn't wanna talk about it', so i'm thinking if she doesn't want to respond (and the comment was directed toward butters) she doesn't have to, and you certainly don't have to on her behalf cos it seems to just confuse us all more. i'm happy to respond to either of you though.
It's easy enough at this point to suspect that you'd want this drama to continue. Your own approach here could be seen as a lesser form of gaslighting in itself. - what drama? you and crow specifically? i've only shown an interest in the saga since she made it public in the thread about suicide. what do you think my aim in gaslighting would be?
Neither of those two things are about my perceptions, but rather errors made within communication. Crow - "there are certain types of things that he has a baffling misunderstanding of" - if you still think i'm wrong then my bad for using that specific word.
She's actually been thinking it might be a good idea for me to find a therapist while I'm the one who strongly doubts that they'll be able to fix anything. What she and I are against, from our own separate experiences, is medication. - oh, she said a couple days ago she was against psychiatry specifically, not therapy, which is where i got that idea. also, i don't see how therapy (minus medication) could be a problem, and if it did turn out to be one, you could always...stop going to therapy.
Instead of beating around the bush, why don't you type the narrative of her and I's relationship as you believe it to be. It's clearly expanded upon just being what's been seen on this forum from attempting to fill in the blanks on your own while finding more and more ways to state that my own perspective shouldn't be trusted in favor of your own. - um, i think i've pretty much done that, no? and honestly, i think my perspective should be trusted in favor of most people's, i'm a smart gal.
"you certainly don't have to on her behalf cos it seems to just confuse us all more. i'm happy to respond to either of you though."
You keep assuming we're working on this forum as some sort of unit. I've responded as I have by my own choice, and it's not really "on her behalf" as there was no request made for me to do so. This is mostly for me.
"what do you think my aim in gaslighting would be?"
Drama? Data-gouging?
"if you still think i'm wrong then my bad for using that specific word."
Baffling as in confusing (a word you weren't afraid of using related to me just now). The tangents can be super loosely associated to the conversation at points to the point of me having to explain the convoluted tangent map that lead to it.
"oh, she said a couple days ago she was against psychiatry specifically, not therapy, which is where i got that idea. also, i don't see how therapy (minus medication) could be a problem, and if it did turn out to be one, you could always...stop going to therapy."
It'd be an expensive waste of my time if it works out as well as... "expected". A lot of therapy tactics work from the patient being blind of what they are.
Psychiatry is the one that can prescribe medication, so that's where that comes from.
"um, i think i've pretty much done that, no? and honestly, i think my perspective should be trusted in favor of most people's, i'm a smart gal."
Your perspective seems to continue to expand while not covering all bases from making assumptive leaps left and right based on how you believe something to appear. A narrative instead of jabs would likely show where misconceptions are being made in a way that can be corrected with more ease. As is it's almost on par with Spatial's guess of what went down. 
As is, I personally find it difficult to trust your perspective when it's full of holes that have lead to assumptions instead of admission of said missing details, conflicts with my own view of the situation that lacks said holes, and from it relying specifically on the notion that somehow you have a better idea of what's going on than I do despite that. Smart or not, it's relying on a set of criteria that's based almost entirely on guesswork and some character assessment that followed as a result of it. A lot of the perceived antagonism is in response to how much is being assumed and to what is being assumed.
"For instance, if I ask him to pick up a box of cereal at the grocery store and he comes back with a bag of potatoes and a considerable monologue about the wonky train of thought that led him to believe that he should get me potatoes instead."
I'd say it's closer to my picking up mini Reese's or king sized Reese's as opposed to the normal sized ones than something that far apart from understanding, but hey, po-tay-toe/po-tah-toe.
"Obviously this is a somewhat cartoonish and overstated example, but that's basically how it works."
Of course I read this part after I've typed the response above... 