Originally Posted by
trevor tiger:
“Entirely what
”
It's in the post.
Quote:
“You were wrong as the OP didn't find the joke objectionable as they didn't believe that it was a joke at all. They found Biggins behaviour objectionable.”

How is that supposed to be contrary to what I said?
It doesn't even make sense. If someone found the behaviour objectionable, and the behaviour was a joke, then they found the joke objectionable regardless of whether they saw it as a joke or not.
I suppose it was always inevitable that Biggins's objectionable behaviour would be excused though, no matter how convoluted the "reasoning" required.
Quote:
“If you watched the show you would have seen that it was a joke just like 99% of the people on here, many who don't even like Biggins so it is not about making an excuse for him.”
It doesn't make any difference to what I said whether it actually was a joke or not. Either way, the claim that it was a joke was being used to excuse what Biggins said.