silo
Regular Member
The bigger question is: who the hell wants to go to work on their off hours?
The bigger question is: who the hell wants to go to work on their off hours?
I always try to leave that part out of my replies. I've learned that all it really serves to do is make the recipient feel wrong, which just gets in the way of getting him to look at what I have to say and judge it on its own merits. Sorta like giving a guy a dirty magnifying glass before inspecting the gem I want to sell him. I'm just making it harder on myself.
I would like think that such stupidity doesn't exhist on this like minded site.
Sarcasm does not show well in the printed word of internet posts. In fact, your comment appears to suggest it as a valid course of action, and may well be interpreted as such. Now if someone DID take that course of action and mentioned your post........ Expect someone to come calling.Such stupidity exHists when people fail to recognize sarcasm, or proper spelling and grammar when making such accusations.
Sarcasm does not show well in the printed word of internet posts. In fact, your comment appears to suggest it as a valid course of action, and may well be interpreted as such. Now if someone DID take that course of action and mentioned your post........ Expect someone to come calling.
Sarcasm does not show well in the printed word of internet posts. In fact, your comment appears to suggest it as a valid course of action, and may well be interpreted as such. Now if someone DID take that course of action and mentioned your post........ Expect someone to come calling.
I understood perfectly. I also understood that without the sarcasm tags it was easy for others to misunderstand.When a person writes <sarcasm>xyz bla bla bla <sarcasm> most folks can figure it out.
While not all folks get it, he was speaking to a man whom wanted to call the police on himself as a MWG just to see how they would respond, something that in the vast majority of opinions is a very unwise thing to do.
Your back to talking about things you do not understand again writeme.
It is impossible to tell. Also, the audience of note in this case is not the members of the forum. It is the non-members that would jump at such a comment (sans sarcasm tags) to point out that "those OCers talk about breaking the law."I considered that it may be hard to pick up through text when posting it, but did anyone really take that as a serious option??
It is impossible to tell. Also, the audience of note in this case is not the members of the forum. It is the non-members that would jump at such a comment (sans sarcasm tags) to point out that "those OCers talk about breaking the law."
What IS quite noticeable is that while I was not the only one to point out the ambiguity of the original unaltered post, you only addressed your snark towards me.
LOL not really. Carnivoire said something like "I hope that kind of stupidity does not exist on this site of like minded people" or something like that. I am not sure I agree with him and while I understood the sarcasam of cash's post, I am not so sure I agree with carnivoire's comment, after all I made it real clear how little intelligence I thought the cal the cops on ones self idea was so I saw little need in commenting.
superlite said something regarding it, but even when he is mad super always remains pretty polite, almost his nature, kind of just a real nice guy all the way around most likely, kind of thinks the best of folks or says little to nothing negative, my perception anyway.
You on the other hand kind of thrive on the controversy, so much that you seek it out in states other than your own. Snarking you, whatever that is, is always a pleasure, it is comical as you indeed have the capacity to put forward a decent argument and you speak up when you do not know the situation a lot so it provides grand entertainment.I would have to agree, it serves no useful purpose, but nether does a guy from a thousand miles away blathering on about things he has no knowledge of as well.
Short version, snarking superlite would serve no purpose and carnivoire's comments held a great deal of irony for me so I had nothing to say. I spoke on your comments regarding cash's comments primarily out of envy of him saying it and me wishing I had thought of it, it is a highly defensible position to hold considering history.
Do you realize yet that your comment was well after the change was made, and that your comment was in error?
My sole reference was to the specific that the comment was not clearly sarcasm to everyone reading it. Do you understand that?
LOL, attempting to falsely claim such does not make it reality.Uh yeah, I realized it when I first read it and envied it. I guess you still struggle with the ability to see it (sarcasm) without someone pointing it out. Not really a surprise, mine was not nearly so witty.
"Inside jokes" only stay "inside" when they remain private. In this case, it is not private, and it is quite possible for it to cast negative attention onto this website and the person who penned it and to the movement as a whole.LMTD said:It wasn't supposed to be, that was pointed and specific for the OP. In the real world most folks call those "inside jokes" sorta like how you never understood the age thing. I am not sure which I find more comical, the original comments or your struggle with them.
You ignore the FACT that those tags were not there. Without those tags, the meaning is easy to misconstrue, and is LIKELY to be misconstrued by anti-gun advocates, and is LIKELY to be pointed out in a negative fashion.When a person writes <sarcasm>xyz bla bla bla <sarcasm> most folks can figure it out.
I knew exactly what I was talking about when I reported it, and when I responded to it. You on the other hand first attacked me for not seeing tags that were not there, and now change to attacking me for not seeing the obvious sarcasm.LMTD said:Your back to talking about things you do not understand again writeme.
Not a one. I made both of those two this morning specifically to show where you were in error.LOL I wonder how many more post you would have made without me saying a word.
/\ /\ /\ HAHAHA
Has anyone seen Zoolander??
Earth to Brint!! Earth to Meekus!!!
I knew it was a joke, I just didn't get it right away.
And here I come to say, "we should be doing more important things, like helping people".
You ignore the FACT that those tags were not there. Without those tags, the meaning is easy to misconstrue, and is LIKELY to be misconstrued by anti-gun advocates, and is LIKELY to be pointed out in a negative fashion.
Now you claim I simply didn't understand the sarcasm? That is not true.
I knew exactly what I was talking about when I reported it, and when I responded to it. You on the other hand first attacked me for not seeing tags that were not there, and now change to attacking me for not seeing the obvious sarcasm.
Neither of those is a valid point to argue against me for. When you do argue against me for those, you are arguing a strawman, and you also stubbornly refuse to accept that reality. You are the one who is "talking about things you do not understand." You are 'projecting.'