Love

spike66 · 6 Apr 2006 at 02:21

Carzy said:
I saw these posts first, and just had to scroll back to see what the joke was...

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

That joke warranted those replies? I think not LOL. Personal attack on you? Oh yes, he was being very malicious, and intending to cause you considerable emotional distress.

Seriously....what on earth are you on about?

In reply to spike66: Yes, the Dons do take personal attacks seriously. This however, was not what you would call a personal attack.

This is priceless. I really don't understand how, regardless whether you find the joke funny or not, you can't see that it is just that...a joke.

My god, I'd love to see what you people do when someone really does insult you.

(Oh and by the way, I don't know how you survive on the internet at all if you take offence at that. Seriously.)

You chip in with your 10 pence worth and offer no defence against the comment. The comment, in a sarcastic way (which should have been read that way) made a sick, even paedophile comment on his relationship. I would like to see how you would fair against that kind of accuasation. It is not what the post was aimed at, and, I amongst others did not like it. So unless you have something to offer to the OP, then you should either, shut up, or go and play somewhere else.
You can always mail me if you want to take it further

spike66 · 6 Apr 2006 at 02:22

INFECTION said:
kool man anyway gonna go now but cheers talk to you tomoz at some point.

Ok mate. Good luck

Nix · 6 Apr 2006 at 02:23

Did you even read this?

KnightStalker said:
ok 20/m/doncaster, in a happy and strong relationship with a wonderful 9 month old son.

spike66 · 6 Apr 2006 at 02:23

Nix said:

Sounds like a plan

spike66 · 6 Apr 2006 at 02:24

Nix said:
Did you even read this?

Why did this warrant a bashing. He said he was in a relationship and had a 9 month old baby

Nix · 6 Apr 2006 at 02:25

spike66 said:
Why did this warrant a bashing. He said he was in a relationship and had a 9 month old baby

He said he was in a relationship WITH a 9 month old baby

KnightStalker said:
ok 20/m/doncaster, in a happy and strong relationship with a wonderful 9 month old son.

Either way, it was a joke, so calm down

divine` · 6 Apr 2006 at 02:26

It was purely a play on words.

It can be read one of two ways.

I was making a joke based on the more twisted of those ways.

That is all there was to it.

Carzy · 6 Apr 2006 at 02:29

spike66 said:
You chip in with your 10 pence worth and offer no defence against the comment. The comment, in a sarcastic way (which should have been read that way) made a sick, even paedophile comment on his relationship. I would like to see how you would fair against that kind of accuasation. It is not what the post was aimed at, and, I amongst others did not like it. So unless you have something to offer to the OP, then you should either, shut up, or go and play somewhere else.
You can always mail me if you want to take it further

Offer no defence against the comment? My defence was that it was a joke, and should be taken as such. The joke was a play on words, because of the way he has phrased his post. If you can't see that, you must be blind, I don't see how you can see it any other way. Sadly having to explain the joke, makes it no longer funny. "His relationship" is blindingly obviously a heterosexual one with his girlfriend (how do you think babies are made?), and so, with that piece of information FIRMLY present in the thread, making a joke about the way he phrased the later part of his sentence is fine, and certainly not as amazingly inflammatory as you see to think it is. How would I fair against what accusation exactly? The accusation that someone on the internet has called me a paedophile with young children?

Hmmm...here's two answers. One in your mindset, one in mine.

Yours:

Ohmigod. Someone has typed something horrible about me. I need some tissues, my eyes are welling, I don't think I can cope, and I think I may have to depart from this "internet" for all eternity in case anyone ever says anything jokingly mean about me ever again. I'm off to eat some fairy cakes and play My Little Pony.

Mine:

Hey, he made a joke. It wasn't a piece of comedic genius, but it was relatively funny. *smiles* Right, time to read another thread now.

Mail you to take it further? Yes, that's exactly what I want to do. In fact, we should meet up, I'll have an official adjudicator and we can debate this as they would in a proper debating format. I shall propose the motion "This House believes jokes should be taken as such", and you can oppose the motion.

Or not....because that would be stupid.

spike66 · 6 Apr 2006 at 02:30

divine_madness said:
It was purely a play on words.

It can be read one of two ways.

I was making a joke based on the more twisted of those ways.

That is all there was to it.

Mate, I believe you were having a laugh. But one thing, how much laughing do you think he was having?

Let's all get on here.
Skywalker, come on, see it was mispalced comedy and accept the appology. We know you are making a go of life. The Don's can decide if it was malicous or not. I wanted this thread to be about why we love our partners, lets keep ti that way

Nix · 6 Apr 2006 at 02:32

I vote that it was a piece of comedy gold.

Carzy · 6 Apr 2006 at 02:33

Nix said:
I vote that it was a piece of comedy gold.

Well, maybe, but not just through the joke itself, but because of the replies it created

spike66 · 6 Apr 2006 at 02:38

Carzy said:
Offer no defence against the comment? My defence was that it was a joke, and should be taken as such. The joke was a play on words, because of the way he has phrased his post. If you can't see that, you must be blind, I don't see how you can see it any other way. Sadly having to explain the joke, makes it no longer funny. "His relationship" is blindingly obviously a heterosexual one with his girlfriend (how do you think babies are made?), and so, with that piece of information FIRMLY present in the thread, making a joke about the way he phrased the later part of his sentence is fine, and certainly not as amazingly inflammatory as you see to think it is. How would I fair against what accusation exactly? The accusation that someone on the internet has called me a paedophile with young children?

Hmmm...here's two answers. One in your mindset, one in mine.

Yours:

Ohmigod. Someone has typed something horrible about me. I need some tissues, my eyes are welling, I don't think I can cope, and I think I may have to depart from this "internet" for all eternity in case anyone ever says anything jokingly mean about me ever again. I'm off to eat some fairy cakes and play My Little Pony.

Mine:

Hey, he made a joke. It wasn't a piece of comedic genius, but it was relatively funny. *smiles* Right, time to read another thread now.

Mail you to take it further? Yes, that's exactly what I want to do. In fact, we should meet up, I'll have an official adjudicator and we can debate this as they would in a proper debating format. I shall propose the motion "This House believes jokes should be taken as such", and you can oppose the motion. or not....because that would be stupid.

How can you justify a joke that insinuates someones sexual tendancies. There is no funny side that I can see that comes from it. If there is, please tell as i am sure that no one else in this thread can see where the funny side of insinuating that someone is having a relationship with a 9 month old child is.
As for meeting up and letting your adjudication take place, I will be at Notts uni on Monday to do some routine work. Where would you like to meet?

divine` · 6 Apr 2006 at 02:40

Nix · 6 Apr 2006 at 02:40

spike66 said:
How can you justify a joke that insinuates someones sexual tendancies. There is no funny side that I can see that comes from it. If there is, please tell as i am sure that no one else in this thread can see where the funny side of insinuating that someone is having a relationship with a 9 month old child is.
As for meeting up and letting your adjudication take place, I will be at Notts uni on Monday to do some routine work. Where would you like to meet?

It was a play on words = funny. It's how jokes work.

It accused him in a subtle way of being something he is not = funny. It was in good humour and should only have been taken as so.

The over the top reaction = funny.

spike66 · 6 Apr 2006 at 02:42

Nix said:
It was a play on words = funny. It's how jokes work.

It accused him in a subtle was of being something he is not = funny. It was in good humour and should only have been taken as so.

The over the top reaction = funny.

So you would, if you were in an emotional state, fing it funny for someone to mock fun and make you out a sex case

divine` · 6 Apr 2006 at 02:42

spike66 said:
So you would, if you were in an emotional state, fing it funny for someone to mock fun and make you out a sex case

Come again?

Nix · 6 Apr 2006 at 02:42

spike66 said:
So you would, if you were in an emotional state, fing it funny for someone to mock fun and make you out a sex case

I wouldn't be as stupid enough to think it was anything other than a joke.

Nix · 6 Apr 2006 at 02:43

divine_madness said:
Come again?

Give it 5 minutes, yea?

divine` · 6 Apr 2006 at 02:43

*waits patiently*

spike66 · 6 Apr 2006 at 02:44

Nix said:
I wouldn't be as stupid enough to think it was anything other than a joke.

Yes, we all know it was meant as a joke. but what about the person it was aimed at. What about their feelings?