@ghost-of-a-duke saidSo, as I said, instead of carefully hedging, you could have simply said you agreed with it up front.
I understood his point because it was valid. I tend to agree with things that I find valid.
Not sure why that needed explaining.
@petewxyz saidYou appear to have the thinnest skin of anyone who has rocked up here in a long time. Especially one who announces "I try and approach most things from a position of not understanding and not knowing. I think you learn more from others that way." That, and a glass chin. Quite a combo.
No burns here. I won't bore you with how I acquired the thickness of my skin, but thanks for your concern.
@ghost-of-a-duke saidNot so. You started off apparently trying to keep your opinion secret and only offered one when pressed.
Apologies my grammar was too nuanced for your understanding.
@ghost-of-a-duke saidNo, not only in MY head, in what you wrote.
Only in your head sir. I'm perfectly transparent.
"I think BigDoggProblem is free to post whatever he likes and understand his point about censorship."
I understand petewxyz's point about me "not having the necessary ethics to have conversations with people", but it does not mean I agree with it.
@ghost-of-a-duke saidYou flounced off AFTER you wrote them. You didn't even say goodbye. Or indeed say anything for weeks. Your first ever 'brush' with me, where I didn't agree with you over something, in private, and you were gone. You actually think I'm going to ask Yvonne to spend any of her time voicing any more of your stuff? Presumably you plan to make your radio programmes with someone else, right?
I find this a very peculiar post to be honest, referencing the radio programme. I took the time to write and send you over 40 micro fictions, and after the first programme aired sent you positive feedback by email and via this site. You didn't reply to either of those messages. How is that me flouncing off?
@ghost-of-a-duke saidPerhaps you need to revisit your ugly little sequence of bridge-burning parting-shot speeches. They are still there where you curled them off before flouncing off. I remember reading them as I sat in the ICU.
How is that me flouncing off?
@fmf saidYou simply misconstrued what I wrote and instead used the Duchess tactic of 'apparently' to tell me what I actually meant. Yet another example of having no interest in what another poster was trying to convey.
No, not only in MY head, in what you wrote.
"I think BigDoggProblem is free to post whatever he likes and understand his point about censorship."
I understand petewxyz's point about me "not having the necessary ethics to have conversations with people", but it does not mean I agree with it.
'Understand' his point about censorship was akin to 'see sense in.'
But sure, you go ahead and tell me what I meant.
1 edit
@ghost-of-a-duke saidI pressed you and you stopped hedging. I agree with you about BigDoggProblem's take on petewxyz's OP, by the way.
You simply misconstrued what I wrote and instead used the Duchess tactic of 'apparently' to tell me what I actually meant. Yet another example of having no interest in what another poster was trying to convey.
'Understand' his point about censorship was akin to 'see sense in.'
But sure, you go ahead and tell me what I meant.
-Removed-I don't think it was a lightweight reason at all and would do exactly the same again. It was in fact the exact opposite of 'fair-weatherness' why I left your club and my unwillingness to be party to the character assassination of a person I consider a friend. I would have done the same for anybody I considered a friend, including FMF or yourself. - And sure, we would collectively mull over reprobates like Romans, but why you should think I would be cool in doing so with an individual you knew I considered a friend escapes me.