Re: OT:Thanksgiving


Pete Dashwood <dashwood@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:5qu3apF11a14mU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I think this is a case where you took it a bit too literally, Peter.


Concerning the above remarks, originally made by Heybub, and approved by
P.
Dashwood:

I find it significant that Heybub thought it necessary to claim he was
joking. If he'd been making fun of HIMSELF I might have found it so,
too,
but he wasn't. If his entire posting is meant to be funny, I can't find
a
single line in it that comes across as anything but nasty.

That reflects more on you than it does on him, Peter.

As Howard Brazee points out later today, some of us could use a smiley or a
<grin> to figure out the difference. When I see words like "liberal" and
"Roe", knowing them to be emotional triggers in the US, used in the fashion
he did, the humour escapes me. I might add that I have seen & heard similar
sentiments expressed that were meant to be taken literally: on FOX for one
souce: that smug Ms. Coulter in particular.


He only claimed he was joking AFTER you took his comments seriously.


He could have said so to begin with ...

His entire post was not a joke, but there were parts that were. Venomous
it
wasn't.

Did you seriously think HeyBub thinks that all Democrats are insane?

Wouldn't put it past him.

There's a certain kind of personality that finds offensive things funny
if
they are directed at someone else.

Not me. And I don't think HeyBub does either. Sometimes people are easily
offended, and sometimes offence is taken where none was intended.

And sometimes it's just as I say.


Turn the remarks against them and their
best response is a wounded plea: I just meant it as a joke. Such
persons
find bullying and actual abuse amusing if it's aimed at people or groups
that they don't like.

I'll remind everybody that a while ago I was roundly panned in this
newsgroup for suggesting that most humour consists of MAKING FUN of
someone
else.

Ah, now I see the source of your sensitivity...:-)

I feel vindicated, not stung. So far as I'm concerned, his post proved my
point. I like to say "told you so".

Most of us give and
take personal ribbing from friends and colleagues PROVIDED it is not
"meant
to wound".

You are quite aware that even amongst colleagues and friends there is a very
fine line between ribbing and insults. If one has any concern for others'
feelings one will avoid potentially wounding jokes. And one will also be
aware of the exact limitations of "politically correct" thought.


Perhaps you gents could analyze the original posting and tell me and
other
joking-challenged persons which sentences are meant to be funny and
which
are meant to be factual.

Well, I was tempted to do exactly that, but there isn't much point; for
the
most part, a joke explained is a joke that's lost.

Didn't ask you to explain, just to identify.



I am indeed from Canada; we regard the US as a demented older uncle. We
shudder at the ignorance of its leadership. We console ourselves with
the
thought that said leadership reflects its contituents.

And you don't think that's offensive?

No more so than his comment.


Whether I agree with you or not :-), the difference here is that you are
lashing out as a reaction to perceived offence, and your statement is
meant
to wound. See the difference?

I do and you're wrong. As the post didn't affect me personally I was not
stung by it: I am appalled by the sense of humour that finds such statements
amusing.


I know very well from your previous posts here that you are not vitriolic
by
nature, but now you have been stung and are posting stuff that you
wouldn't
normally. You can save yourself some irritation and anger if you don't
rise
to HeyBub's (or anyone else's...) bait quite so readily.


A lot of your posts may come across to some people as patronizing ...

PL



.

Quantcast