rousseau: easy;
-writer uses sarcasm, reader doesnt get it = wrong usage of sarcasm from writer.
-writer uses sarcasm, reader gets it = correct usage of sarcasm.
-writer doesnt use sarcasm, reader understands it as sarcasm = wrong usage of sarcasm from reader.
-writer doesnt use sarcasm, reader doesnt take it as sarcasm = correct usage of not using sarcasm.
if you have any further problems, please do not hesitate to ask.
bj0rn - im not your teacher.
Nope. Dumb reader. Next.
Understandable sarcasm, perhaps, but OK.
Again, dumb reader.
So if I will not say “bj0rn is dumb” and you don’t assume I am saying “bj0rn is dumb”, then I have succesfully not said “bj0rn is dumb”?
You’re dumb, bj0rn.
Defect borg:
“Refutile is sistance. Your ass will be simulated”.
WallyM7 on Coldfire:
"Yeah, he knows a little about everything because they have a good prison library."
Actually, Satan was joking when he made the newbie remark.
And both Jezebel and Flyhalf are obviously welcome additions to the board.
Actually, I’m the one that’s dumb.
Coldfire can read a bj0rn post and take it apart.
I read a bj0rn post and I’m a deer caught in the headlights of a car. I blink twice and freeze, struck dumb.
coldfire dearest: i could just as well call you dumb for not understanding this correctly. but that would make me as dumb as you are, so.
coldfire, you are as dumb as you can be!
Seems like you missed the sarcasm there, bj0rn. That means you “misused sarcasm”, right?
Practice makes perfect. Hang in there, kiddo.
True. And, although countless people on this board have offered to be yours, you choose to remain incoherent. Why?
So let’s say I write a simple and relatively meaningless sentence, for instance, “bj0rn is crazy.” In this sentence, I make some correct usage of nearly every grammatical and rhetorical device known to man? You’re crazy, bj0rn.
Okay, so riddle me this, bj0rn: if I use sarcasm and Coldfire gets it, but you do not get it, have I used sarcasm correctly or incorrectly?
“History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it.” -Winston Churchill
When you know that your time is close at hand
Maybe then you’ll begin to understand
Life down here is just a strange illusion
I second the thanks for the welcome sentiment, Wally. I figured it’d take at least another hundred posts or so before I’d be noticed.
Course, I just defended Ed up above, I’m sure to be noticed now…
the differance between “catching” sarcasm and not using it, is me! i do get it, but prefer not to use it.
that would mean you are either not doing it right, or you are using irony.
not my fault you cant do it right. granted of course that you can say the same thing about me. but the thing is, i know i “catch”(nice metaphor) you, but i know you dont “catch” me.
and dont give me no crap about not understanding what i am trying to say. otherwise you couldnt say i was right/wrong or even had an opinion.
bj0rn - chickens for sale…!
Dumb reader indeed.
Like I said before, sarcasm can cause a lot of 
confusion if used incorrectly and that is why this :rolleyes: particular emoticon was introduced to SDMB. SO WHY DONT WE JUST USE IT AND DROP THIS FUCKING THREAD.
[ :rolleyes:]
but they still dont know that i was being sarcastic all the time…
[/ :rolleyes:]
bj0rn - chickens for sale…!
Ohh and for the records.
By incorrect usage I mean: using sarcasm on this board whithout the emoticon.
I just felt like I would clear that up before I got flamed for writing “incorrectly used sarcasm”.
and now some verbal vomit.
skupla - a complete bastard
thank you for “listening”.
Because some people won’t use smilies. Period. I’m not saying I’m one of them - but the fact remains that many a time, it is up to the skills of the beholder to separate a sarcastic post from your average run-of-the-mill post. And I’m sorry, but there is just very little dignity in bitching about something that you don’t GET because of:
It is not our fault that we are not understood by bj0rn when we use sarcasm. It is his fault, because he does absolutely fuck all about improving his reading skills in the English language.
So I suggest you get off your noble horse now and stop defending your countryman.
Only THEN will we drop this fucking thread already.
Defect borg:
“Refutile is sistance. Your ass will be simulated”.
WallyM7 on Coldfire:
"Yeah, he knows a little about everything because they have a good prison library."
I think the only way this thread is going to end is if Coldfire and BjOrn meet in person. Nothing says loathing like a headlock. You really can’t get at a person like BjOrn over the Internet. A guy like him seems impervious to insult or reason.
“Clatu, Verrata…nector?..neck-tie?”
oh…this is pretty coldfire. did you of all people fail to see the truth in skuplas words? or did you choose to ignore it because you were being called dumb?
occam: loathing? what are you talking about?
bj0rn - chickens for sale…!
(You know, I find it helps to copy it to WordPad and then fix all the punctuation errors, etc., so they’re not so distracting. Then I usually light some incense, sacrifice a chicken to the spirit of Kate Turabian, and get really drunk. Then it actually starts to make sense.) - notthemama
Errmmm… my response is right there, bj0rn. As you can see, I did not agree with skupla. Him calling me dumb is hardly impressive, BTW.
very true indeed (though i do not really agree with the “becauses”). an easier way to explain this all would be: “it is up to the skills of the beholder to separate an untrue post from your average…”. where untrue means: “not related or opposed to the truth in discussion”.
the subject of sarcasm can be both untrue or not correctly used from both reader and writer. the fact is though, that sarcasm(dictionarily) can hide the truth in discussion, therefore it can be a tool to promote ignorance or misunderstanding.
bj0rn - chickens for sale…!
(You know, I find it helps to copy it to WordPad and then fix all the punctuation errors, etc., so they’re not so distracting. Then I usually light some incense, sacrifice a chicken to the spirit of Kate Turabian, and get really drunk. Then it actually starts to make sense.) - notthemama
bj0rn, it is all about intentions.
Someone who makes a sarcastic remark has no intention of telling a lie, promoting ignorance, or misleading the reader. He is displaying his contempt for a certain situation or opinion. In doing so, he places his trust in the reader of the message to understand the intended sarcasm. To avoid confusion, he may choose to use an emoticon, but by no means is he obliged to do so.
If one of the readers does not understand the sarcasm intended, it is not the writers fault. I’m sure most posters are quite willing to even explain their sarcasm to a poster who is uncertain what to make of it - just ask.
PEOPLE DO TEND TO GROW TIRED OF ONE SINGLE POSTER WHINING ON AND ON ABOUT HOW WE ARE “promoting ignorance and telling untrue stuff unparallel with the discussion” (or something…) AND OTHER ASSORTED INANE CRAP.
So drop it already. Thank you, and good night.
Defect borg:
“Refutile is sistance. Your ass will be simulated”.
WallyM7 on Coldfire:
"Yeah, he knows a little about everything because they have a good prison library."
so coldfire…
[ :rolleyes:]
when one reader understands given text as sarcastic, but the text was not intended to be sarcastic, is it the writers fault?
[/ :rolleyes:]
that would be about the same thing as:
bj0rn - [ :rolleyes:]i will give you a hint coldfire; you are the reader.[/ :rolleyes:]