Medical Expenses: Brother Very Ill in Thailand

unholyangel

gilett wrote: »

I'm addressing the issue you raised. Its you who doesn't seem to want to recognise it. You said I was 'calling" the OP cold and callous, I explained the difference between making objective observations based on what we are observing from the OP ie' it seems' cold and callous, and your erroneous interpretation of 'you are' cold and callous. There's a very clear difference.

You will find numerous posts throughout this thread where I have said it 'seems' or 'feels' cold and callous. You will not find a single post where I have directly addressed the OP and 'called them' cold and callous so please don't tell porkies.

Why would I have to answer anything you say anyway? :cool:

As I said:

Unless you'd like to point out where you said you find the brother cutting off all contact for something is callous or that it seems the brother was callous in only caring about what he wanted rather than any impact it would have on the OP.

Nor have you answered why the OP would be needed to consent to the surgery if the brother was able to give OP's details to the foreign office.

Of course if you don't want to answer, you could always stop responding (rather than trying to distract by arguing nuances). Being antagonistic in your postings towards others then hiding behind strawman arguments tends to see you classed as a troll around here.

happyandcontented

unholyangel wrote: »

As I said:


Of course if you don't want to answer, you could always stop responding (rather than trying to distract by arguing nuances). Being antagonistic in your postings towards others then hiding behind strawman arguments tends to see you classed as a troll around here.

I am sorry, but this poster didn't directly call the OP any of those things. What you refer to as a 'nuance' or 'pedantry' really does make a material difference to his comments.

unholyangel

happyandcontented wrote: »

I am sorry, but this poster didn't directly call the OP any of those things. What you refer to as a 'nuance' or 'pedantry' really does make a material difference to his comments.

It is nuance/pedantry because my question to him was why he wasn't applying the same standard to the OP's brother than he has the OP. Why is OP the one who seems cold/callous and not the brother who acted like a child and cut off all contact with his brother (its his brother for gods sake, they're blood - to paraphrase gilett) all because he didn't get his own way.

It makes no difference to my question whether he outright said the op is cold and callous and whether he said it seems cold and callous. The context the words being used are as adjectives, descriptive terms and regardless how its worded it still amounts to the same thing - nothing more than giletts perception of it.

Although I also agree with sunny intervals - why not go tell your boss that they seem to be an a******* and see if they find it materially different.

klew356

Need an update from poster

happyandcontented

unholyangel wrote: »

It is nuance/pedantry because my question to him was why he wasn't applying the same standard to the OP's brother than he has the OP. Why is OP the one who seems cold/callous and not the brother who acted like a child and cut off all contact with his brother (its his brother for gods sake, they're blood - to paraphrase gilett) all because he didn't get his own way.

It makes no difference to my question whether he outright said the op is cold and callous and whether he said it seems cold and callous. The context the words being used are as adjectives, descriptive terms and regardless how its worded it still amounts to the same thing - nothing more than giletts perception of it.

Although I also agree with sunny intervals - why not go tell your boss that they seem to be an a******* and see if they find it materially different.

If you say to a person I would find x action to be cold and callous (and they haven't actually done it yet, as is the case with the OP) it is very different to saying I find you cold and callous. Bringing in the issue of how one would speak to a boss is a strawman. The distinction is there.

Re why the OP and not his brother. At the time the house incident occurred (of which we know very little) then I would have disagreed with his action too and advised them to find a way forward.