Re: What is YOUR view?

On Wed, 01 May 2024 07:16:52 -0400
jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 10:29:19 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
<admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:
 

On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 00:56:56 -0400
jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
>

On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 20:11:08 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
<admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:
 

On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 16:02:12 +0200
Arkalen <arkalen@proton.me> wrote:
>

On 24/04/2024 15:37, Arkalen wrote:

On 24/04/2024 14:57, jillery wrote:

On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 09:59:22 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
<admin@127.0.0.1> trolled:
>

On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 03:11:51 -0400
jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
>

On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 20:45:17 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
<admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>

On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 14:38:23 -0400
JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
>

Is this really better than just taking your meds?
>

I think there's some kind of award here for posts that make people
laugh;
I commend JTEM's implication that it's others who need meds.

>
>
So yet another JTEM fan. No surprise here.
>

>
You misunderstand.

 
 
<Kerr-Mudd's explanation missing here>
 
 

Now that you and your bedfellows have exercised your inner trolls,
perhaps you would take the time to specify what I have misunderstood.
>

 
Athel Cornish-Bowden said that JTEM implying that others (than JTEM)
need meds made Athel Cornish-Bowden laugh, i.e. that JTEM needs meds in
a way that is so obvious that the suggestion the opposite might be true
is humorous. "Needing meds" in this context is clearly presented as a
derogatory accusation of irrationality, both in JTEM's usage and Athel
Cornish-Bowden's, making it extremely unlikely that ACB be a JTEM fan.
So your apparent claim that he is a JTEM fan suggests a misunderstanding
involving any aspect of the above.

 
 
Alternate explanation:  Kerr-Mudd explicilty "commends" JTEM on his
implication that jillery needs meds (read it again).

>
It wasn't what I meant;

 
 
Nevertheless, it is what you wrote.  You and your bedfellows rely on
mindreading more than I do.  Bad jillery, bad, bad, bad, so very bad.
 
 

it was intended as an ironic look at JTEM's
craziness, but you decided (or mis-read) it as an insult to yourself, and
are still going on about it. Would an apology help?
Ok, I apologise.
Can we leave it there?

 
 
If only you would.  Not only do you and your bedfellows continue to
blame me for this "misunderstanding", some escalate this otherwise
trivial issue to excuse their willful stupidity.
 

Ok, have it your way. Olive branch rescinded.

 

The multitude of mindless personal attacks by multiple posters who act
as if it's clever to exercise their inner trolls, [triggered] by nothing
more than what you call "a misunderstanding", further supports my
original understanding.

Didums.

 
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
 

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.