twooffour said:
Mrebo said:
twooffour said:
I never claimed ALL sarcasm was this. Please quote me on saying that.
Want to know something HILARIOUS? I never claimed that you claimed that "ALL" sarcasm "was this."
I would never claim such insipid BULLSHIT.
You say plenty deserving this characterization.
[blathering]
Simple enough? Or do you need more Sensible Conversation 101?
All sarcasm is non-responsive... I can't believe this.Maybe because I "NEVER" said what you pretend I said. "I can't believe this." LOL
Well, for the Aspies who may lurk around here (no offense):
"In lieu of responding to 2/4's sarcastic post (wait, doesn't 2/4 habitually criticize sarcasm as defensive and non-responsive? ah, oh well.)"
That bit very strongly insinuates that I'm being hypocritical by being "sarcastic", while "habitually" criticizing this in others.
Well, if you've learned ANYTHING from my response, you now know this is stupid.
If something is stupid, it doesn't matter whether you outright claim it, claim it only to 90%, or insinuate it, "wink wink nudge nudge", it's still stupid.
Sarcasm has NOTHING to do with it. It's ALL about the substance of the content. Sarcasm is a mere expression tool.
It strongly insinuates that you wrongly deride people's sarcasm when that sarcasm is justified. What I "learned" from your post is that you can offer reasoning to support the use of sarcasm. What you miss is that the same reasoning supports sarcasm used by many of us that you've derided in the past. You fail to recognize that.
I would have been easier if you just admit you misread my post than trying to find a reason to call what I wrote stupid. But you're missing the point that the sarcasm you've dismissed is justified for the reasons you now offer.