Dave
He hasn't been back to answer my reply to him where he totally misread my statement about Osborne and Masters. Obviously doesn't have the stomach to face militants
My hands were shaking too much to lace my DM's up properly. I'd complain to Admin about TUST bullying.....if they weren't also the Admin =D
With no football this weekend are we scraping the barrel for something to stir up to pass the time ?. I feel like Count Dankula trying to say ‘Look I wasn’t seriously advocating that the Jews should be gassed, and my dog isn’t really a Nazi’.
So I might have to wander off to feed the pug in a minute.
Firstly you cannot overestimate the mind numbing triviality of what was most likely accidentally rather than deliberately misconstrued here.
So you’ve got me and Merse, two old duffers who neither use Facebook, and neither of us have looked on Facebook/Twitter to check on what had actually been said.
Merse posted: ‘Has he said ~ as twitter/facebook was supposed to be awash with ~ that Osborne had sold up? No he put a question mark after it which even to an idiot, does suggest he is asking a question’.
The implication being that those who posted on Facebook/Twitter stating that Osborne had sold up, were below the level of idiots. As ‘even an idiot’ would have known that a question was being asked, as idiot level intelligence at least gives you the capacity to recognise the ‘?’ symbol and know what it stands for.
Now Merse, I’m sure, wasn’t being 100% serious. And in my reply to him I firstly attach a smiley to indicate that I’m dreaming up no more than a humorous defence of those ‘below idiot level’ Facebook posters. By the same token, wondering whether the question mark might have appeared somewhere else on Merse’s screen, compared to where I was seeing it on mine, was written in the same vein, i.e humorously and not to be taken literally.
It’s hard to have to try to take this seriously and to explain a pretty weak late evening jokey comment directed to one person (Merse), but instead of accepting the ‘too thick to understand there was a question being posed’ explanation for what inaccurately appeared on Facebook/Twitter, I light heartedly and with ‘smiley’ first remember, in effect reply to Merse ‘Oi maybe they weren’t that thick, but just rushed off to Facebook/Twitter to announce the ‘selling up’ before returning to read up on the less interesting question of who the buyer might be.
It was a reply to Merse that was off the cuff, off the top of my head, call it what you like, and which I’d given less than 10 seconds thought to. It wasn’t particularly witty….but I tried.
Dave then observes: ‘I think you've just taken it as you want it to read’. Well yeah, exactly right, my couple of lines to Merse were saying ‘Hey Merse here’s a (slightly) funny ‘Justice for the idiots’ type interpretation, based on taking it how it needs to be read to cast them in a better and less stupid light than you’d done’.
It was no more than a 10 second post of unbelievable unimportance and triviality, to my mind misinterpreted by Dave, who rightly had other matters of REAL importance on his mind, as his post of a few hours before mine had explained.
In the circumstances letting it lie looked like the ‘win win’ option. I was happy to let Dave draw the conclusions that suited him, plus enjoy the satisfaction he would have gained from having a go at me. In exchange I benefitted from not having to spend considerable time trying to explain the process whereby crossed wires had arisen over something of infinitesimal unimportance.
It’s clearly remained an issue, still rumbling on, so with this attempt to address it, along with an assurance that I will resume being a reader rather than a poster, it would be nice if a line can now be drawn under it.
Dave[quote] He hasn't been back to answer my reply to him where he totally misread my statement about Osborne and Masters. Obviously doesn't have the stomach to face militants ;-)[/quote]
My hands were shaking too much to lace my DM's up properly. I'd complain to Admin about TUST bullying.....if they weren't also the Admin =D
With no football this weekend are we scraping the barrel for something to stir up to pass the time ?. I feel like Count Dankula trying to say ‘Look I wasn’t seriously advocating that the Jews should be gassed, and my dog isn’t really a Nazi’.
So I might have to wander off to feed the pug in a minute.
Firstly you cannot overestimate the mind numbing triviality of what was most likely accidentally rather than deliberately misconstrued here.
So you’ve got me and Merse, two old duffers who neither use Facebook, and neither of us have looked on Facebook/Twitter to check on what had actually been said.
Merse posted: ‘Has he said ~ as twitter/facebook was supposed to be awash with ~ that Osborne had sold up? No he put a question mark after it which even to an idiot, does suggest he is asking a question’.
The implication being that those who posted on Facebook/Twitter stating that Osborne had sold up, were below the level of idiots. As ‘even an idiot’ would have known that a question was being asked, as idiot level intelligence at least gives you the capacity to recognise the ‘?’ symbol and know what it stands for.
Now Merse, I’m sure, wasn’t being 100% serious. And in my reply to him I firstly attach a smiley to indicate that I’m dreaming up no more than a humorous defence of those ‘below idiot level’ Facebook posters. By the same token, wondering whether the question mark might have appeared somewhere else on Merse’s screen, compared to where I was seeing it on mine, was written in the same vein, i.e humorously and not to be taken literally.
[img]https://s31.postimg.org/3vgpx3gwb/Banter.jpg[/img]
It’s hard to have to try to take this seriously and to explain a pretty weak late evening jokey comment directed to one person (Merse), but instead of accepting the ‘too thick to understand there was a question being posed’ explanation for what inaccurately appeared on Facebook/Twitter, I light heartedly and with ‘smiley’ first remember, in effect reply to Merse ‘Oi maybe they weren’t that thick, but just rushed off to Facebook/Twitter to announce the ‘selling up’ before returning to read up on the less interesting question of who the buyer might be.
It was a reply to Merse that was off the cuff, off the top of my head, call it what you like, and which I’d given less than 10 seconds thought to. It wasn’t particularly witty….but I tried.
Dave then observes: ‘I think you've just taken it as you want it to read’. Well yeah, exactly right, my couple of lines to Merse were saying ‘Hey Merse here’s a (slightly) funny ‘Justice for the idiots’ type interpretation, based on taking it how it needs to be read to cast them in a better and less stupid light than you’d done’.
It was no more than a 10 second post of unbelievable unimportance and triviality, to my mind misinterpreted by Dave, who rightly had other matters of REAL importance on his mind, as his post of a few hours before mine had explained.
In the circumstances letting it lie looked like the ‘win win’ option. I was happy to let Dave draw the conclusions that suited him, plus enjoy the satisfaction he would have gained from having a go at me. In exchange I benefitted from not having to spend considerable time trying to explain the process whereby crossed wires had arisen over something of infinitesimal unimportance.
It’s clearly remained an issue, still rumbling on, so with this attempt to address it, along with an assurance that I will resume being a reader rather than a poster, it would be nice if a line can now be drawn under it.
