Post by Tony Post by Rich80105 Post by George
On Sun, 3 May 2020 23:53:16 -0700 (PDT)
Post by John Bowes
A rhetorical question designed to highlight your stupidity Rich! You
suggest Curia do Labours polls while we all know it's UMR who tend to
give results that don't come within a bulls roar of reality. Much
like so many of your posts Rich :)
Instead it just highlighted your inability to engage in civilised
discussion - my response was designed to highlight the stupidity of
What nonsense, you were sarcastic which as we all know is a form of abuse when
"As we all know" is to speak for others, a presumptuousness too far.
Sarcasm may be interpreted as abuse by those who must needs go looking for abuse.
Otherwise it may be interpreted as provocation slyly aimed at the looking-for-hurt suggestible who must needs seek and find offence wherever and whenever he, listens, reads or looks.
One writer puts it this way:
"Doggedly literal-minded people just don't get it. So sarcasm either confuses them or makes them feel stupid. (And, really, that's part of its fiendishly clever design.)" A narrow, limited view, but OK for all that.
Intelligent, well-formed minds handle sarcasm with aplomb. Sufficiently quick-witted people know how to score off it, whereas the slow-witted and the intransigent feel aggrieved at their own lack of mental alacrity and agility and so act as one would expect.