putting a smiley at the end of that post didn't change the fact that it was rude and unnecessary
Buy on AliExpress.com
Juventuz Rollcall (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter gray
- Start date
- Status
Buy on AliExpress.com
his comment was useless, but we understood that he was kidding...that's just the way he jokes... you dont have to laugh to it of it's not funney to you, but i dont see how you can find it offensive, specially that it wasn't directed towards you.
gray, you have a problem with the way people joke... get over it already.
gray, you have a problem with the way people joke... get over it already.
There's the keyword! "might" nobody may find it offensive at all, but you just started something useless anyway!!
Mermaidah can take care of herself. That's """"IF"""" she even found it offensive!
It's obvious he was joking!! dont you see the smiley!?!
I've never seen anyone offend someone using a bold statement like that, then adding the " ; ) " smily!
.........
exactly!! because i didn't find it funny at all. I KNOW that it's a joke, but i dont find it funny. his intentions are clear enough with that smiley. Please note the difference between a dumb/useless joke and an offensive post that isn't a joke.
In other situations, when he acts like a prik rubbing things in our face subliminaly, i'd answer back, or just ignore him on the grounds that he's isn't even worth the time. I dont respect him at all from readying all his posts that are obvious to me and everyone else that he's sucking up to nick. That's why i started this whole "ass-kissing" thing. Many of you caught along and agreed with me, so he's called that by many people now.
dumb jokes are very different from his weasely ass-kissing techniques (intended to gain more power/selfesteem to rub in more stuff against us) . the former is pure, but may get on ur nerves, while the latter isn't pure. so if you make these rude replays to the former-type posts of his, then you're just being a prick urself being overcritical of his pure-hearted posts.
always judge by the intention, not by the material.
That's why i didn't reply to you for saying something stupid and useless to Deej. You called him a "fag." I, and i'm sure deej, know that you didn't meant it literaly, so there's no need to nit-pick on something unintentional.
Also, calling someone a "fag" may be extremely offensive to homosexuals, but i dont represent them, so there's no use for me to peck at you for saying it. it's just another stupid post that'll be ignored!!
Mermaidah can take care of herself. That's """"IF"""" she even found it offensive!
It's obvious he was joking!! dont you see the smiley!?!
I've never seen anyone offend someone using a bold statement like that, then adding the " ; ) " smily!
.........
exactly!! because i didn't find it funny at all. I KNOW that it's a joke, but i dont find it funny. his intentions are clear enough with that smiley. Please note the difference between a dumb/useless joke and an offensive post that isn't a joke.
In other situations, when he acts like a prik rubbing things in our face subliminaly, i'd answer back, or just ignore him on the grounds that he's isn't even worth the time. I dont respect him at all from readying all his posts that are obvious to me and everyone else that he's sucking up to nick. That's why i started this whole "ass-kissing" thing. Many of you caught along and agreed with me, so he's called that by many people now.
dumb jokes are very different from his weasely ass-kissing techniques (intended to gain more power/selfesteem to rub in more stuff against us) . the former is pure, but may get on ur nerves, while the latter isn't pure. so if you make these rude replays to the former-type posts of his, then you're just being a prick urself being overcritical of his pure-hearted posts.
always judge by the intention, not by the material.
That's why i didn't reply to you for saying something stupid and useless to Deej. You called him a "fag." I, and i'm sure deej, know that you didn't meant it literaly, so there's no need to nit-pick on something unintentional.
Also, calling someone a "fag" may be extremely offensive to homosexuals, but i dont represent them, so there's no use for me to peck at you for saying it. it's just another stupid post that'll be ignored!!
i'd hardly call them pure-hearted.
As for judging by intention rather than material, because we're all human, people make mistakes and can offend people without knowing it. Here's an example:
At the start of every uni term, we hold a welcoming party for all the first year students, where they can just get to know the students from older years. So we play games, drink together and just get to know eachother. Now one of these games involved writing down different categories on a piece of paper e.g. "Best football player", and the 1st year girls might have to choose an older guy who they think fits that category, and vice versa.
So one of the first year guys gets a piece of paper saying "Most sexually active", and he has to choose a girl who he thinks fits that description. After choosing one of them, he was asked why he chose that particular girl. His answer?
"Because she looks like a s lut!". When everyone was ooohing and aaah-ing, he saiys "But it's true!"
Believe it or not, he was trying to be funny. You shouldn't always just look at the intentions over the material .
Anyway i think we'd both agree that this is going nowhere, and i'd rather be arguing with fred than you, so let's drop this already.
sorry i made you write so much about something so stupid. I wasn't gonna continue it and i thought it'd been dropped about 15 posts ago, so in a way, you're the one who started this particular argument
Dumbass
As for judging by intention rather than material, because we're all human, people make mistakes and can offend people without knowing it. Here's an example:
At the start of every uni term, we hold a welcoming party for all the first year students, where they can just get to know the students from older years. So we play games, drink together and just get to know eachother. Now one of these games involved writing down different categories on a piece of paper e.g. "Best football player", and the 1st year girls might have to choose an older guy who they think fits that category, and vice versa.
So one of the first year guys gets a piece of paper saying "Most sexually active", and he has to choose a girl who he thinks fits that description. After choosing one of them, he was asked why he chose that particular girl. His answer?
"Because she looks like a s lut!". When everyone was ooohing and aaah-ing, he saiys "But it's true!"
Believe it or not, he was trying to be funny. You shouldn't always just look at the intentions over the material .
Anyway i think we'd both agree that this is going nowhere, and i'd rather be arguing with fred than you, so let's drop this already.
sorry i made you write so much about something so stupid. I wasn't gonna continue it and i thought it'd been dropped about 15 posts ago, so in a way, you're the one who started this particular argument
Dumbass
- Status