Archaeologist or looter?

[Plumbata]

No! Don't Go Pete-chan! I recognized the humor; the comment about the world wars kinda crystallized in my mind that your message was tongue-in-cheek. Early on I misinterpreted all sorts of comments and acted a fool in response to the misunderstandings, and likewise I've had perfectly innocent comments misinterpreted by others. There are many different personalities and perspectives interacting here so it can be difficult to figure out the real meaning and intentions behind this rather flat 2-dimensional communication format. I've had hundreds of posts deleted over the years and am none the worse for it. Life is a battlefield, so you should be prepared to wake up every morning ready to look any man square in the face and tell him to f*ck off and go to hell. [] Ultimately, the words one posts are only a reflection of a reflection of but one of a multitude of the facets that comprise a true individual (unless they are particularly simple and stupid people), so if someone takes offense to a few words and in reaction makes expansive character judgments without the additional evidence necessary to justify it, you should feel free to roll your eyes and ignore it all wholesale.

 

[mctaggart67]

ORIGINAL: pchan

. . . And thanks mctaggart67, yeah, I`ve been around the web for some years now, know how it works, evidently you also missed the humor in my post . . .

Gee whiz, I misread your post's intent. It did not come off as humorous, since it wasn't worded with any irony or light sarcastic phrases or emoticons, which would indicate a lighthearted posting and which we long-time internetites assume experienced forum surfers would use to project humour. Not using those techniques renders your posting raw and bitter sounding. To claim otherwise is unfair to your responders, who only saw the rawness and bitterness in your comment. To say anyone "evidently" did not see your humour is unfair and illogical, since your posting had no textual evidence, either in actual text or in subtext, which suggests humour. Sorry to say, but the problem is not how we have misread your posting; it is in how you have written it.

So, if we are to get down to brass tacks here, the root of the entire miscommunication is your word choice. Now, I won't really hold it against you, since you may have written your original comment when tired or in a bad mood or pressed for time. Oh well, these things happen. Still, if you don't write humorously, how do you expect your readers to respond? Jim (epackage), others and I couldn't see the humour, so we replied accordingly. My intent was to convey to you that it's no biggie to be ignored or not answered fully on this forum. It happens to all of us.

But now you're defending yourself with explanations laced with juvenile declarations and insulting implications. These cannot be ascribed to fatigue, etc., since such are deliberate attempts on your part to denigrate others, including me. This much is clear -- no emoticons necessary. Even so, your choice to leave is misplaced and too extreme a reaction to the whole sorry direction this thread has taken. I'm big enough to apologize to you if my word choice was insulting. So, sorry for the condescending tone in my first reply to you.

 

[pchan]

ORIGINAL: mctaggart67

ORIGINAL: pchan

. . . And thanks mctaggart67, yeah, I`ve been around the web for some years now, know how it works, evidently you also missed the humor in my post . . .

Gee whiz, I misread your post's intent. It did not come off as humorous, since it wasn't worded with any irony or light sarcastic phrases or emoticons, which would indicate a lighthearted posting and which we long-time internetites assume experienced forum surfers would use to project humour. Not using those techniques renders your posting raw and bitter sounding. To claim otherwise is unfair to your responders, who only saw the rawness and bitterness in your comment. To say anyone "evidently" did not see your humour is unfair and illogical, since your posting had no textual evidence, either in actual text or in subtext, which suggests humour. Sorry to say, but the problem is not how we have misread your posting; it is in how you have written it.

So, if we are to get down to brass tacks here, the root of the entire miscommunication is your word choice. Now, I won't really hold it against you, since you may have written your original comment when tired or in a bad mood or pressed for time. Oh well, these things happen. Still, if you don't write humorously, how do you expect your readers to respond? Jim (epackage), others and I couldn't see the humour, so we replied accordingly. My intent was to convey to you that it's no biggie to be ignored or not answered fully on this forum. It happens to all of us.

But now you're defending yourself with explanations laced with juvenile declarations and insulting implications. These cannot be ascribed to fatigue, etc., since such are deliberate attempts on your part to denigrate others, including me. This much is clear -- no emoticons necessary. Even so, your choice to leave is misplaced and too extreme a reaction to the whole sorry direction this thread has taken. I'm big enough to apologize to you if my word choice was insulting. So, sorry for the condescending tone in my first reply to you.

....edited.....decided I just don`t wanna keep this going. thats what you think, fine by me.....not like we`re friends or anything, just more crap on the web.

 

[RED Matthews]

Re: RE: Archaeologist or looter?

THANKS for the good reading. Smiles were made here. RED M.