A (feigning stupidity): Why aren’t you asking me to do it again? (It being the thing that A flaked on twice before). You aren’t smiling at me any more, winking, taking me out to dinners, and practically kissing my ass to do it again. Not that I want to do *it *again … !
B: Well, you seem to have your own priorities. We still all right though.
A: Well, you know what they say … fool them once … fool them twice …
To me, it seems that A has pointed out B’s ass-kissing and implied that B is a fool. What do you think?
Btw, I’m A. This is a real exchange that happened in my life and I dropped these gems (bombs) on B.
I guess it depends on what “flaked” means. All I can picture is dandruff, which doesn’t make sense. Try using some more standard terminology and you might get better responses.
It means he didn’t show up to a planned social engagement. A person is a ‘‘flake’’ if they don’t keep their commitments, not out of malice but absent-mindedness.
I really don’t understand what A was trying to say to B.
But you’re A? I would say that intentionally calling someone names to their face is rude. Is your question if we think B noticed the implied name-calling? Because that’s an entirely different question.
A was rude for blaming B for daring to trust them a second time with the request (hinted at by the “fool me once, fool me twice”). Sometimes people give someone the benefit of the doubt, and I thought B’s response was very generous.
A was rude for flaking. A was rude to ask to be invited do whatever it is again. A was rude to point out that somehow B is a fool to have let A flake on him so much.
B should kick A to the curb and write him off for the jerk he is.
Thank you all for confirming that I was the dick. The problem was that B seemed completely oblivious to the bombshells I dropped on him. Well, maybe B’s just stupid then. Only adds to the hilarity.
If A and B are sets, then the relative complement of A in B, also termed the set-theoretic difference of B and A, is the set of elements in B, but not in A.