Denmark is the First to Fall

Dithering_Dad

carolt wrote: »

Dithering Dad, I wasn't suggesting you were an alcoholic, but just that your post seemed peculiarly aggressive for an amiable discussion about relative prices in the UK v Scandinavia. And you seemed to need to relax a little.

Glad you've now relaxed; maybe you just needed a good night's sleep.

lol, clearly you have a special power to see emotion in the written word. Quite a gift!

If you look back at the whole of the thread you will see that someone remarked that beer costs £20 a pint in Scandinavia, someone else said it cost £5 a pint and I supplied the costs per country as I found it (I love Scandinavia and have travelled there quite a lot). End of story.

I'm not sure where the 'aggression' was in my price breakdown, though perhaps you were feeling a little angry that day and mentally passed the aggression you were feeling onto my words? This often happens when communication is by message only, one tends to assign our emotions to the text we read, this is exactly why emoticons ( :eek: ) were created so that forum users could indicate the emotions they were feeling when they wrote their text.

For information, I am currently :huh: :think: :undecided as to your motive behind your 'aggression' insinuations, yet feeling :j :cheesy: :wave: about life - much as I was while writing the other text on this thread.

Hope this helps, dear.

morg_monster

haha love it... you two are peas in a pod, winding each other up in a totally passive-aggressive way...:rolleyes:

Dithering_Dad

morg_monster wrote: »

haha love it... you two are peas in a pod, winding each other up in a totally passive-aggressive way...:rolleyes:

Lol, I'm glad we made you smile, but I have to say that I'm at a loss as to why carol is having a go at me in this way. Perhaps she is just bored and wants to wind someone up? Seems an odd way to go about it - I can't really get angry about the relative costs of consumer items in Scandinavia :rolleyes:

As to my part, I'm not trying to wind carol up, but merely trying to get across that I can't really get angry about the relative costs of consumer items in Scandinavia, despite her assertion that I have. lol

The world is a wonderful place full of diverse and different people, and the internet reflects that. I love the way you can chat to oddbods like carol though on this medium, because in real life it just wouldn't happen.

Anyway, lets get back to the thread shall we, I feel carol has diverted us enough....

Does anyone think a recession in Denmark, or any other Scandinavian country will hit its population as hard as one in the UK, given that they have less personal debt, lower mortgages (that tend to be fixed for longer periods) and much more generous state benefits?

p.s. please note the lavish use of emoticons...

carolt

Re second last paragraph - no. Quite agree.

Glad I'm diverting!

Glad you're having a great day, Dithering Dad! Me too.

morg_monster

personally i'm slightly more on your side with this whole overblown thing DD... carolt seems in this thread to be like those people who in a minor disagreement say "Stop getting so defensive" when you are really not, but you can't respond by saying "No I'm not!" because they think that proves them right... and the more you try to tell them why you think they are wrong, they just sit there laughing, holding their hands up and saying "alright, easy tiger, OK I agree with you, whatever...".
(and if that person is a man and you are a woman, a comment about "that time of the month" usually comes in at some point!)

WTF?_2

morg_monster wrote: »

personally i'm slightly more on your side with this whole overblown thing DD... carolt seems in this thread to be like those people who in a minor disagreement say "Stop getting so defensive" when you are really not, but you can't respond by saying "No I'm not!" because they think that proves them right... and the more you try to tell them why you think they are wrong, they just sit there laughing, holding their hands up and saying "alright, easy tiger, OK I agree with you, whatever...".
(and if that person is a man and you are a woman, a comment about "that time of the month" usually comes in at some point!)

Strange - I would have said the same thing about Dithering Dad.

All this passive-aggressive "I'm not really annoyed" stuff just gets old fast...

Dithering_Dad

morg_monster wrote: »

personally i'm slightly more on your side with this whole overblown thing DD... carolt seems in this thread to be like those people who in a minor disagreement say "Stop getting so defensive" when you are really not, but you can't respond by saying "No I'm not!" because they think that proves them right... and the more you try to tell them why you think they are wrong, they just sit there laughing, holding their hands up and saying "alright, easy tiger, OK I agree with you, whatever...".
(and if that person is a man and you are a woman, a comment about "that time of the month" usually comes in at some point!)

So true, it's a good way to win an argument when your case is weak, provided the person falls into the 'I'm not defensive" spiral and gets angry at the smug smile and the "easy tiger" comments.

I had a look at the post that caused all this (back on page 2) and apart from presenting a lot of info in a short amount of words, I don't see the aggression anywhere. I've noticed that carol (and WFT? who has also just 'chipped in') are extremely verbose and so maybe think that short, concise sentences indicate aggression or anger?

Perhaps I should change my prose so that it follows their "use 10 words when 1 will suit" style?

Tad boring though, I tend to nod off half way through !!!!!!?'s lengthy rants. Oh look, he's posted on this thread, let's have a rea.....zzzzzzz.

WTF?_2

Dithering_Dad wrote: »

So true, it's a good way to win an argument when your case is weak, provided the person falls into the 'I'm not defensive" spiral and gets angry at the smug smile and the "easy tiger" comments.

I had a look at the post that caused all this (back on page 2) and apart from presenting a lot of info in a short amount of words, I don't see the aggression anywhere. I've noticed that carol (and WFT? who has also just 'chipped in') are extremely verbose and so maybe think that short, concise sentences indicate aggression or anger?

Perhaps I should change my prose so that it follows their "use 10 words when 1 will suit" style?

Tad boring though, I tend to nod off half way through !!!!!!?'s lengthy rants. Oh look, he's posted on this thread, let's have a rea.....zzzzzzz.

Talking about rants, I notice that all of your posts from your little protracted angry outburst on the other thread yesterday have gone. Did you ask the mods to remove them as they didn't quite fit the "I'm not bovvered" image that you're now trying to present :rotfl:

I don't blame you for having them removed, I wouldn't like stuff like that to be on record. Glad you realised how they were making you look and are making an effort to maintain composure.

Dithering_Dad

!!!!!!? wrote: »

Talking about rants, I notice that all of your posts from your little protracted angry outburst on the other thread yesterday have gone. Did you ask the mods to remove them as it didn't quite fit the "I'm not bovvered" image that you're now trying to present :rotfl:

I don't blame you for having them removed, I wouldn't like stuff like that to be on record. Glad you realised how they were making you look.

Alright, easy tiger, OK I agree with you, whatever...


Oh, it's just too easy! :rotfl:

WTF?_2

Dithering_Dad wrote: »

Alright, easy tiger, OK I agree with you, whatever...


Oh, it's just too easy! :rotfl:

Frankly, I think all your OTT name calling yesterday was probably the right thing for you to do. Get the anger out instead of bottling it up and going passive-aggressive.

Though you should be prepared to stand by what you post - a bit rum to post all that venom and then ask for the posts to be excised - that is what happened, yes?