Problem at work, need some quick advice....

Southend1

goonarmy wrote: »

None of the posts are unintelligble,as well you know.;)

Well I'm pretty sure I don't understand this:

"Your taking things to extremes doesnt prove the point, sadly it derives from the point your due to the extremes you take it to."

goonarmy

Southend1 wrote: »

Well I'm pretty sure I don't understand this:

"Your taking things to extremes doesnt prove the point, sadly it derives from the point your due to the extremes you take it to."

Cos your dense ill explain. Saying things like eat when discribing an event doesnt prove the point. Its stupid and makes everything your trying to say worthless.

Southend1

goonarmy wrote: »

Cos your dense ill explain. Saying things like eat when discribing an event doesnt prove the point. Its stupid and makes everything your trying to say worthless.

Whereas writing something that doesn't make sense is intelligent and makes everything you're trying to say completely beyond doubt.

And since you have proven you're absolutely correct, there's no need for me to engage with you any further on this thread.

Goodnight.

goonarmy

Southend1 wrote: »

Whereas writing something that doesn't make sense is intelligent and makes everything you're trying to say completely beyond doubt.

And since you have proven you're absolutely correct, there's no need for me to engage with you any further on this thread.

Goodnight.

And further we digress from the issue at hand cos you enjoy petty squabbling.....

jc808

Southend1 wrote: »

Sorry, while I am generally tolerant of typos and spelling mistakes, if there are so many, so bad that the post is unintelligible then I am not going to devote any time to trying to decipher it.

I'm sure tenacity is in my dictionary, and had I not known what it meant I would have looked it up, if that was what you had typed.

Do you mean derives from or detracts from?

Have you got autism or something? Serious question.

ValHaller

goonarmy wrote: »

And further we digress from the issue at hand cos you enjoy petty squabbling.....

jc808 wrote: »

Have you got autism or something? Serious question.

I see it as resolute defence of a principle against a sort of moral relativism which says that OK, touching in the workplace is not OK unless the person's motives are 'wrong', in which case their wishes not to be touched can be ignored.

Dovah_diva

goonarmy wrote: »

None of the posts are unintelligble,as well you know.;)

I'm really sorry, but they are. I had no idea you were groping for the words tenacity or magical. I agree it is poor form to pull someone up over their spelling (although I am guilty of doing it on occasion ) but this is something else entirely.

goonarmy wrote: »

Tenacity would have been there. Maybe you should check it too.
And the the other word was magical. Which in no way derives from the point being made. But if your point is invalid you could always resort to pointing out spelling mistakes. Well done you.

Did you mean detracts?

goonarmy

ValHaller wrote: »

I see it as resolute defence of a principle against a sort of moral relativism which says that OK, touching in the workplace is not OK unless the person's motives are 'wrong', in which case their wishes not to be touched can be ignored.

Why are you making stuff up? No where does it say that. The issue is still is the op. Regardless of how convoluted your response is.

goonarmy

Dovah_diva wrote: »

I'm really sorry, but they are. I had no idea you were groping for the words tenacity or magical. I agree it is poor form to pull someone up over their spelling (although I am guilty of doing it on occasion ) but this is something else entirely.



Did you mean detracts?

And what? The words magical and tenacity were both directed at other posters as a commentary on their posting styles with zero bearing on the point at hand. And the posts CANNOT be illegible as your self and another have concluded what the word should be. Therefore you both clearly understand the point being made. I thankyou for reiterating my case.:T

ValHaller

goonarmy wrote: »

Why are you making stuff up? No where does it say that. The issue is still is the op. Regardless of how convoluted your response is.

I have not made anything up.

A) unwanted touching is always unacceptable
OPs views on "inferior" people seem to indicate he has a poor attitude towards some coworkers.

Just because may be the case that doesn't mean A) is invalidated.

It does not come clearer than that