Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Kelleris" data-source="post: 2487926" data-attributes="member: 19130">Curses!&nbsp; Foiled again!&nbsp; You're right, of course, and I should be happy my post touched a nerve.&nbsp; It's better than blank-eyed apathy, anyway.&nbsp;Not as a rule of thumb, but in this case I think so, yes.&nbsp; It would be hard to miss the fact that he's probably going to do something like this to you if you write in, and heck I'm sure some people do so just to see what it provokes.&nbsp; Either that or he's making the questions up, in which case he's not actually talking about anyone at all.&nbsp; In either case, nobody's likely to really be hurt, emotionally or otherwise, so it actually is less of an insult.This is the first time I've seen something targeted at a group that didn't seem like simple parody or hyperbole.&nbsp; Granted, that might very well have been due to simply my emotional reaction.&nbsp; And I don't read this column very often (maybe once a month, if that), so it's possible I don't really know Dr. Bombay's style (such as it is).&nbsp;In his defense, I have gotten useful information from the column before, which is part of the reason I read it when I come across it.&nbsp; For instance, I have and run AdAware regularly because of one of the columns.&nbsp; But I'm not particularly computer-savvy, I admit.&nbsp;Awww, that's not very nice.&nbsp;&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f641.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":(" title="Frown&nbsp; &nbsp; :("&nbsp; data-smilie="3"data-shortname=":(" />I think &quot;idiotic&quot; is the wrong word, though.&nbsp; I am being neither foolish nor stupid, especially since I have rational (maybe not good) reasons for my reactions to the column in this case and in others.&nbsp; At least be more precise if you're going to insult me.&nbsp; &quot;Hypocritical&quot; or &quot;blindly partial&quot;, or even &quot;provincial&quot; might be nice.&nbsp; I've never been called provincial before.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Kelleris, post: 2487926, member: 19130"] Curses! Foiled again! You're right, of course, and I should be happy my post touched a nerve. It's better than blank-eyed apathy, anyway. Not as a rule of thumb, but in this case I think so, yes. It would be hard to miss the fact that he's probably going to do something like this to you if you write in, and heck I'm sure some people do so just to see what it provokes. Either that or he's making the questions up, in which case he's not actually talking about anyone at all. In either case, nobody's likely to really be hurt, emotionally or otherwise, so it actually is less of an insult. This is the first time I've seen something targeted at a group that didn't seem like simple parody or hyperbole. Granted, that might very well have been due to simply my emotional reaction. And I don't read this column very often (maybe once a month, if that), so it's possible I don't really know Dr. Bombay's style (such as it is). In his defense, I have gotten useful information from the column before, which is part of the reason I read it when I come across it. For instance, I have and run AdAware regularly because of one of the columns. But I'm not particularly computer-savvy, I admit. Awww, that's not very nice. :( I think "idiotic" is the wrong word, though. I am being neither foolish nor stupid, especially since I have rational (maybe not good) reasons for my reactions to the column in this case and in others. At least be more precise if you're going to insult me. "Hypocritical" or "blindly partial", or even "provincial" might be nice. I've never been called provincial before. [/QUOTE]

Verification