Oh and
@Witty Banter - I tried to read your post about me, but to be completely honest, so much of it didn't really make any sense (to me).
I'm not holding anyone's hand and I will stand by my comments that boasting about what university you went to and what your life earnings have been were pretty low come backs. That's my opinion and I don't really get what you mean by it being an experiment?!? You may differ in opinion and that's fine for you.
I'm happy to discuss stuff with you via PM if you like.
Regarding the
all care and no responsibility post, it seems to have hit the mark on the ambiguity/obscurity front and stratified accordingly.
The experiment reference was towards group dynamics theory. Who publicly supports whom. Who privately consoles. Who smokescreens. Who wallflowers. The Papa Smurf complex was predetermined. It is real, live survival herd instinct best watched with David Attenborough running commentary.
Regarding toolish comments, an astute reader hit the nail on the head by recognising that whilst a toolish comment, it had context, function (and basis. And efficacy ). I think that it was justified in the context of calling the repititious bluff of a person who vicariously parrots the last reality show mean girl he watched, in the mistaken belief that meanness or feigned elitism somehow is a virtue or makes his father rich.
Was the tall poppy syndrome reaction of some foreseeable at the time? Of course. A group will coddle the vulnerable, but if you dangle obvious bait of pomp, you are lynched. Personally I think Meglos' unattributed Charlie Pickering joke was appropriate (pending references), gallant even, but your prolonged fixation with it denotes your own insecurity. Both my toolish replies were highly specific replies to toolish comments, yet you take them personally and retrospectively. It's also well known academics and teachers use years served for self-aggrandisement purposes, and your own shameless year-drop lacked context.
Those done, Bleachey, I think you should realise that sitting in sanctimonious judgement of some, while turning a deliberate blind eye to profanity laden sprays and hissy fits of the herd, makes yours a lesson in double standards. The content that you have tacitly approved of is staggering. I think you are running a mock trial for the purpose of group ingratiation and social display, and have chosen your area of personal insecurity to conduct it. I politely defy you to list a single tangible consequence of your disapproval of the toolish comments, within the context of our pre-existing relationship of ...? Judging people you have already dismissed as not assets for social association has no meaning. To sit in armchair judgment, itself, is already condescending and patronising.
I will proactively volunteer that they were 'cheap' and 'toolish', but also tailored, correct, accurate, warranted, justified, suitable for context, when in Rome, and immediately effective bluff calls. 'Low' connotes unfairness. You'd have to convince me on that, but I'm open.
Please now state your judgment of the usage of personally targetted four letter words, given you clearly read it. And. Say. Nothing.
