Was kind of confused by the guy's reply as well. I don't really see a dangling participle in your sentence. The most common forms of dangling participles that you'll see are when the first clause of a sentence refers to a subject that isn't explicitly mentioned in the next clause. The result can sometimes be ambiguous or confusing, so they're best avoided.

Take this sentence for example: "Walking along the passage to the town, a memorial archway blocked our way."

See how the subjects of the first and second clauses are not the same? The first clause is the dangling participle of the sentence. On it's own, it lacks a subject and leaves the reader anticipating that the subject of the whole sentence will be whatever "walked along the passage." When we read the rest of the sentence and find that the subject is really the memorial archway that blocked our way, it becomes clearer why the preceding clause is problematic. So how do we change the sentence so that the subjects agree and confusion is eliminated? Well, we know from the first clause that the implied subject is "we" because we found "our" way blocked when we were "walking." So let's change the second clause of the sentence around to also make "we" the subject. "Walking along the passage to the town, we found that our way was blocked by a memorial archway." Now in the first clause, "we" walked before "we" (second clause) found.

What I think the other guy might have been thinking about was the "mistake" of ending a sentence with a preposition (from), instead of saying "It is not about the girls, but the nice guy from whom he tried to steal." However, the legitimacy of such a rule is not as clear cut as many understand it, and there are times when it is perfectly natural to end a sentence with a preposition.