Subject:
|
Re: double entendres (was Re: I've been out of action, and need to contact Melody Brown ASAP!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.loc.au
|
Date:
|
Thu, 1 Feb 2001 06:33:40 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
632 times
|
| |
|
|
"Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message
news:G8158n.MAq@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.loc.au, Geoffrey Hyde writes:
> > Why is it these things all take three weeks before I know about them?
> > (Computer lost all data on hard disk, etc. - I know - have fun picking • apart
> > *that* lot!!)
> >
> > I put in a perfectly decent subject line, and someone I don't know except • by
> > his reputation calls it a double entendre. I think you're interpreting • it
> > out of context - while I'm on the Internet I'm "in action", as I stated • in
> > the quoted subject line above.
>
> Yes, it is indeed interpreted out of context, that's what Richard and • myself
> find so funny about it. The best double entendres are completely
> unintentional. I riff on slips I see all the time, nothing personal... but • I
> ain't gonna stop any time soon.
I wouldn't have minded half as much if you'd tried to put it into the right
newsgroup. It really ought to have been redirected to o-t.fun -
occasionally I will make a funny remark without adding any discussion, and I
do try to send the posts that are like that to o-t.fun. But I also make
very few of them, as most of my time is taken up reading posts.
> However, I've noted you as not being able to take some good natured • ribbing
> and will try to forbear any further riffs on typos, slips, grammar, etc,
> that you make in future.
If you really feel the need to, perhaps o-t.fun is the place to send them?
;-)
> > It has nothing whatsoever to do with Mrs. Brown, I'm quite certain she's • got
> > enough things to worry about without other people's good-natured attempts • at
> > humor coming up with stuff like this, and I'm equally certain she'd like • the
> > subject to be dropped entirely.
>
> Maybe, maybe not. Maybe she found it just as funny (and totally harmless) • as
> Richard and I did. She didn't say. But you're belaboring it now. Let it • go,
> it is an example of the class of "funny once".
Perhaps, but I'm sure there was something about not messing with or trying
to decide who loves who written by someone I can't remember, but was
probably taught in school - a lot of which has mostly been forgotten, but
not all of it. (An issue, which if you really want to discuss, ought to go
to somewhere in the .debate sublevel, and perhaps the off-topic newsgroup in
that hierarchy ...)
> > I'm emailing a copy of this to Todd, I'm certain he would see my point of
> > view.
>
> Which is what, exactly? That you're way overreacting and taking things way
> too seriously? Lighten up.
No, to make my point clear on the matter. And to say that anything to do
with love should only be left to those in it, and not messed around with by
others. When I was in school kids would taunt others with it, and it was
equivalent to verbal bullying - fortunately, I never got much, if any, of it
but I certainly saw others getting abused/joked at by their mates.
> > It's not quite the reaction I expected from a mature bunch of AFOLs.
>
> On this I agree, your reaction isn't quite what I expected either. But as • I
> said, you're on my "can't take a joke" list now, and I shall endeavour to • do
> better in future...
My reactions, as you call them, come from my life - I'm quite sure, if you
had been me, that you'd have been equally disappointed if I had posted
similar about you ...
Joking is one thing - but making fun of others is another, and you step
carelessly along a fine line between the two. Just don't overstep too
often.
--
Cheers ...
Geoffrey Hyde
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
16 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
