Originally Posted by Cherrybomber:
“The humour wasn't apparent.
”
“The humour wasn't apparent.
”
I used a
and an exclamation mark... and yet the humour wasn't apparent?Anyway, never mind. Sorry to the other posters for going OT.
Jim has been "nasty" to Natasha since......
2 of 2
I used a
and an exclamation mark... and yet the humour wasn't apparent?Anyway, never mind. Sorry to the other posters for going OT.
Originally Posted by Vasa:
“You argue that you are more objective in your critique of the candidates. ”
“You argue that you are more objective in your critique of the candidates. ”
No, I suggest it as a possible explanation.
Quote:
“In fact, I find posts such as your previous one quite bizarre as they seem to suggest that your personal perception of a heavily edited series makes you some kind of authority on a person's character. A person whom you have never met and probably never will. To me, it is totally outlandish to name-call and to denigrate a person's personality when you truly have no idea what you are talking about - hence, my 'devil's advocate' response. Of course everyone's entitled to their opinion, but an informed opinion. And even then, when such opinions are presented as fact, as yours tend to be, I take issue with them.”
“In fact, I find posts such as your previous one quite bizarre as they seem to suggest that your personal perception of a heavily edited series makes you some kind of authority on a person's character. A person whom you have never met and probably never will. To me, it is totally outlandish to name-call and to denigrate a person's personality when you truly have no idea what you are talking about - hence, my 'devil's advocate' response. Of course everyone's entitled to their opinion, but an informed opinion. And even then, when such opinions are presented as fact, as yours tend to be, I take issue with them.”
And yet you state Jim is decent, that he will always choose himself an his family. Is that always the decent thing to do?
I'll answer.- NO.
You do exactly what I and other FMs do on here, you state views about the contestants.
When I did the exact same with Natasha, you agreed.
So its clear- if my assumptions and views accord with yours thats ok, and if they dont, they are wrong and you will not only take issue with them, but with me personally.
I dont come here to engage in personal battles of will with FMs. So, for me, its done
Originally Posted by Cherrybomber:
“When I did the exact same with Natasha, you agreed.”
“When I did the exact same with Natasha, you agreed.”
What you said about Natasha was not offensive and neither was it stated as a fact.
Originally Posted by Cherrybomber:
“So its clear- if my assumptions and views accord with yours thats ok, and if they dont, they are wrong and you will not only take issue with them, but with me personally.”
“So its clear- if my assumptions and views accord with yours thats ok, and if they dont, they are wrong and you will not only take issue with them, but with me personally.”
What you're saying is contradictory. How could I take issue with you personally when I am happy to agree with some of your posts?
Re-read my first reply. It is totally impersonal. Now re-read your response to mine. You're the one who took the personal route.
2 of 2
