Fer’ chrissakes, you make a comment worthy of a cape and badge stating, “Captain Obvious” and you’re upset over sarcasm in the pit.
Frankly, when it comes to the opposite sex I do just fine, but it’s neuroticism and oversensitivness like this that gives me nightmares and sends me running in the opposite direction. But, again, if you’ve whipped someone into it, congratulations and more power to ya’.
I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. Had I known that you just liked to be a jerk for being a jerk’s sake I wouldn’t have bothered. Believe it or not, there are some people, who occasionally haven’t heard common sayings. I was erring on the side of NOT assuming first that you were being a jerk. I did not think that even you were dumb enough to think that someone were really putting out real fires from an electonic device on a subway.
Snort…I’m the least neurotic girl, you’d ever hope to meet. No “oh my God I broke a nail” kinda girl here.
One question…the “Whipped someone into it”, what the are you talking about? That statement makes no sense.
Anyway look, if you start off by sniping at someone who’s made an innocent comment, someone who calls you on it isn’t being oversensitive, they’re calling you on something you’ve done.
Let me put it in “guy language”.
If you fuck up, there are consequences. Yelling at someone who did nothing to deserve it is a very minor fuck up, but it’s a fuck up all the same. The consequence of you yelling at someone who didn’t do anything to you, is that someone called you on it.
If, on the other hand, someone had said something that needed to be replied to in such a snotty accusatory way, that would be different. I just didn’t see the sense in you being on the attack for no reason. I just called you on it. It’s not like I’m sitting here sobbing my poor little girlie heart out over it or something.
The sniping at Urban Chic was both snotty and weird behaviour. Do you do that in real life? I’m honestly curious, It’s just such a weird way of behaving.
If a girl were sitting in a bar and you were talking about this subject, would you say the same thing to her that you said to Urban Chic? It just strikes me as a really strange and unpleasant way to act, again UNprovoked as it was.
And again, had someone started off being all snide about your dislike for technology then yeah, fire away. Anyway, if you don’t wish to continue this, no biggie, I was just mainly perplexed and curious about why you felt you had to do that, and why you were so angry and bitter seeming. Had I known you don’t really like folks all that much, I wouldn’t have attempted to engage you in conversation.
So, I guess I lied, or like a girl, changed my mind. And I did “do it again” regarding posting to you. So sue me!! 
A clarification about the quote rule. While we have decided to allow a bit of very obvious editorial modification of labeled quotes (e.g. <snip>, blah blah as padding, etc.), I feel this is over the line. Primarily because of the last “I rock at email!” phrase, which is a made-up first-person phrase currently attributed to CanvasShoes that she never said. Relaxing the rule to allow things like “<snip>” is somewhat recent, and we’re still hammering out the details.
Note that this is not a formal warning, just guidance for future posting.
Duly noted.
And Canvas, no hard feelings, but I really think that you’re overreacting about a bit of sarcasm. I’m not living in fear that UrbanChic is spending Friday nights alone at home crying into her Wheaties over my comments, but maybe I’m wrong.
So very, very wrong.
And it’s Kashi Good Friends, not Wheaties.
That was my second guess. Honest.
So you pointed out that her metaphor was not literal? Fascinating. Truly groundbreaking stuff. I can see why you eschew the meager techonogy that is the Blackberry, you sir are on the verge of telepathy.
And China Guy, my Blackberry is a phone and a PDA that synchs with my outlook and calendar at work. They’re pretty common that way.
One final note: I like my Blackberry, BUT I do think the holsters are cheesey. The deveice fits just fine in your pocket or briefcase.
I know!
And I’ve got a newsletter too, are you interested?
Wait, hold on, just wait… is that sarcasm I detect?
Being an upright and noble individual, CanvasShoes will be here momentarily to defend my honor.
I like you.
First of all, who in their right mind eats breakfast cereal on Friday night? Unless you pour it out just to cry into it, which strikes me as kinda weird, but, you know, different strokes…
Anyway, I think it would have been a better thread if it had been about little Yuppie-lings and the electronic devices that their parents have them carry around at school to get around the whole “no-cell-phones-in-school” rule.
it was not sarcasm. it was awe. pure awe, anyway, think that newsletter on over.
So, another day in court for RIM and NTP… and still no final decision.
I have to applaud RIM’s decision to fight this tooth and nail. From what I have been able to glean from the Net about NTP, one of the founders had patents on some early form of radio-transmitted messaging - more pager than anything else, and very limited in its capability. But NTP’s raison d’etre seems to be suing (or threatening to sue) everyone under the sun who might be intimidated into paying outrageous licensing fees (or settlements) to avoid the quagmire of the courts. They seem to have been surprised that RIM wouldn’t just cave in and cough up.
I’m no big fan of the Blackberry - I don’t have one, and wouldn’t take one if you gave it to me (except maybe to sell on EBay), but it sticks in my craw that companies like NTP can act like commercial terrorists and attack companies like RIM and Nokia that actually do something.
http://www.spicyedition.com/archive/news/abstract-nytimes-2005-05-02-rimm.html is an NYT article that basically reflects my feelings on the subject.
But I was told I could listen to the radio at a reasonable volume…
Both NTP and RIM and the software patent system deserves to be shot.
RIM used their patents to do the same thing to competitors before NTP went after them.
In addition, they were both granted patents (in their respective countries) for sending e-mail over a wireless connection. This is non-obvious in what way? The reason why they allow these types of patents is because the law is specifically written such that combinations of existing technology that have not been written about previously are considered novel. But who would write about something that is obvious? The answer is nobody!
All of the NTP patents have been preliminarily killed by the USPTO, although they have finalized the process on only 1 so far.
Also the workaround by RIM has been in articles in the trade press but they have not specifically said how they will do it, so who knows if they really have a work around or if it’s just talk.