[threethirtytwo]

>Calling it "obvious" someone meant something rather than what they actually typed with their own fingers is pretty nuts though.

The above is what he said in response to me defending someone and saying that they are not "nuts". I am the person who called it "obvious".

The colloquial meaning changes in context. Under normal conditions you're correct, it's a benign statement, that's slightly derogatory. But I changed the context. I emphasized the minor derogatoriness of making that statement and I said the person you said that to is not in actuality "nuts". Then he proceeded to call me (aka my statements) "nuts".

Look I don't know if you're trolling, but you're utterly wrong. It was a targeted statement. It's clear what was said, there is just something wrong with how YOU are interpreting it. I am a native english speaker.

[jahsome]

You can childishly call me all the names you'd like, but you're distinctly wrong. Words have literal meanings whether you accept that fact or not.

The operative word you have repeatedly used is interpretation. Anything that requires interpretation is inherently and literally NOT obvious.