i'm not keen on anything, no idea where you got that from.
The fact that you're banging on about a throwaway remark, like it's some sort of personal mission for you, maybe.........?
i'm more curious why your now going way off in all sorts of 'spin'/waffle/whatever you want to call it.....
Did you not want your question answered, then?
is me questioning your post upsetting you?
I'm not upset in the slightest. A touch perplexed by your deep obssession over it, perhaps... and maaaaaaaaaaaaybe a slight suspicion of some attempt to conceal an ulterior motive, or agenda... but definitely no upset.
i read your original Bloody Sunday post and could see no obvious comedic, or sarcastic clues so was looking for clarification as to which other Bloody Sunday event you could possible be trying to mix it up with.
It's usually no longer funny when you have to explain the joke...
can you highlight the specific part of your post that contains the obvious sarcasm or 'wildly smart' bit - i just can't seem to get it, no matter how many times i read your original reply.
If you don't get it, that's your problem.
so you stated that you don't recall many mass killings and even reference the Troubles, yup?
Well, if you say so. I'm not sure how else you think I might answer that, really, it being obviously my own words...
Huddy replies with the above, yup?
Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees................
all very sensible so far, yup?
Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees................
then you reply with the above, which seems to me to be devoid of sarcasm, wit or banter. which made me question your reason for posting it. i genuinely do apologies if you were just having a tongue in cheek moment.
The fact that I had already mentioned The Troubles should clue you in to the suggestion that I already know about Bloody Sunday. The response therefore is ironic, ie, "a state of affairs or an event that seems deliberately contrary to what one expects and is often wryly amusing as a result". The sarcasm follows as, "the use of irony to mock or convey contempt", resulting in the context providing the wit. The fact that I provided that little factoid of there being several different incidents with the same name is what finishes it off into a little banter.
Apologise away...
but you already said you couldn't recall many mass killings, one is pointed out - one related to the Troubles
One?
ONE.
I said I could not recall
many, before lending that the context of mostly single figures per year during the years I mentioned, compared to today which is in some cases as high as three figures per year, thus quantifying many.
and which has had quite a bit of media coverage lately but you still respond with your 'which one' reply. that's not sarcasm, wit or whatever else you want to call it -
I don't pay that much attention to the media these days, else I'd never get anything done with all the **** happening in the world. I am aware of the BS prosecutions, although they've been on the cards and periodically popping up far longer than what I'd call 'recent', given the decade-long investigation a few years ago. I perhaps hear a little more about it than those who only watch Sky News, though.
But in the full knowledge of which he meant, and my presumtion that Huddy also knew I knew, that
does make it sarcasm... Possibly with a touch of facetious smartassery in the banter part.
just doesn't make sense, at least to me. but as i've said a few times now, my apologies if i have just missed the underlying tone of your post.
I don't know how else to explain it without sounding like I'm ripping into you personally. If you still don't get it, just ignore it and move on.
