Barclays re-enters High LTV Mortgage Market

geneer

Really2 wrote: »

No,

They are to be used to give insecure posters a mental breakdown.

What better way to make people worry about things on a forum.






Did you thank that because..

• You like me
• You hate me
• Agree
• Don't agree, but are sarcastic.
• Thought it was a good point.
• Thought it was a bad point but they hate the person it was against.
• Funny,
• Not Funny but sympatheic.

The list is endless.

I beleive the phrase you might be looking for is "putting things in context".

So for example if pimperne1 thanks a poster who's just criticised him (as he is prone to do) its quite clear hes done so in what he hopes to be a trollish wind up, but actually exposes his own extreme irritation.

In a similar fashion to the faux irreverent posts from Joe Skeppi, Johnny bravo, and wotsthat above have inadvertently exposed their own festering resentment.

Equally if its clear that certain posters share certain views, and indeed have expressed the same in a specific thread, we can understand that its highly probable they have thanked the post simply because they agreed with it.

RenovationMan

JonnyBravo wrote: »

:rotfl:

Brilliant.
Will we be getting an apology?
:rotfl:

I've just thanked him too. Now he's twice as wrong as he was.

Three times as wrong. :rotfl:

wotsthat

geneer wrote: »

Equally if its clear that certain posters share certain views, and indeed have expressed the same in a specific thread, we can understand that its highly probable they have thanked the post simply because they agreed with it.

A few posts ago you said 'clearly indicate' agreement. Now it's highly probable. I slayed your theory with my ad hominem strawman assertion and you know it.

JonnyBravo

geneer wrote: »

I beleive the phrase you might be looking for is "putting things in context".

So for example if pimperne1 thanks a poster who's just criticised him (as he is prone to do) its quite clear hes done so in what he hopes to be a trollish wind up, but actually exposes his own extreme irritation.

In a similar fashion to the faux irreverent posts from Joe Skeppi, Johnny bravo, and wotsthat above have inadvertently exposed their own resentment.

Equally if its clear that certain posters share certain views, and indeed have expressed the same in a specific thread, we can understand that its highly probable they have thanked the post simply because they agreed with it.

Well I liked the original theory as it was so simple.
This new one seems a bit more complex. I'm not sure it'll go down well when it's peer reviewed.
It's the bit about me inadvertently exposing myself that's going to cause the most trouble.

RenovationMan

geneer wrote: »

:rotfl:In a way.

A comment Bizzarely thanked by RenovationMan and Iveseen the light. Both of whom have been key participants of the off topic discussions in the interim.

It seems to me as if a distinct lack of self awareness is made up by oodles of hypocricy.

Soemone else who is a bit pre-occupied with 'thanks'.

geneer

wotsthat wrote: »

A few posts ago you said 'clearly indicate' agreement. Now it's highly probable. I slayed your theory with my ad hominem strawman assertion and you know it.

:rotfl:But you clearly haven't slayed this theory.

The faux irreverent posts from Joe Skeppi, Johnny bravo, and wotsthat above have inadvertently exposed their own festering resentment.

wotsthat

geneer wrote: »

:rotfl:But you clearly haven't slayed this theory.

Oh dear. Your theory says that thanks clearly indicate agreement with the content and I've thanked your post even though I didn't agree with the content. Therefore your theory is incorrect.

That my thanks was faux irreverence (whatever that is) is irrelevant as my thanks disproved your theory.

If you'd said that thanks usually indicate agreement with post content I think I'd agree. My exquisite lack of self-awareness proved you wrong.

JonnyBravo

geneer wrote: »

:rotfl:But you clearly haven't slayed this theory.

geneer wrote: »

In a similar fashion to the faux irreverent posts from Joe Skeppi, Johnny bravo, and wotsthat above have inadvertently exposed their own festering resentment.

I like the way you went back to your post to add the word "festering". Clearly we weren't evil enough unless we were "festering" :rotfl:

Graham_Devon

geneer wrote: »

I beleive the phrase you might be looking for is "putting things in context".

Have to say geener is completely on the ball here.

We all know were playing a game here of onemanupmanship on the thanks thing!

Pimperne (and I think, though stand to be corrected....haven't noted it in my filing system correctly) Rinoa are quite often pointing out that geener has thanked a post, and therefore that post has been nullified...or therefore that post is rubbish as geener has thanked it.

No one ever pulls Pimperne up. Strange? Not really. It's Pimperne doing it so that's all just fine, and whatsmore, it's against geener, so it's absolutely accepted.

Still going though.....suitably impressed!

Pimperne1 wrote: »

Woo Hoo, thanked by rewired!

Not a word said!

Pimperne1 wrote: »

Don't know but they thanked your post.

You guessed it, not a word said!

System

It might just be me but Geneer has gone from an irritating little !!!! to incredibly amusing recently. "Parody of himself" keeps springing to mind. 1pm can't come soon enough sometimes