I haven't once argued with (or against) Mark's post, and see nothing in it
now or before to argue with, so it's not a new position or any position.
Again the rude taunt of 'nit-picking'. Whether I'm right or not, I've
explained why I found it humorous; you've yet to explain what definition it
offers about the problematic relations between poetry and song. At which
point I might have something to agree or disagree with.
You asked for my response to Mark's post and I gave it as honestly as I
could. In reply to me you wrote:
"Again, to misrepresent Mark’s statement as wholly humourous, and not just
the latter part of it, could be seen as patronising towards him. I take him
at his word, as that is all his statement allows for. You seem to be giving
the impression that you know his unstated intentions in making that
statement. If you have read his mind, then this would be understandable but
otherwise it is presumptuous and can’t be justified by what he wrote, which
others here did not find humourous."
I called it 'humorous' not 'wholly humorous'. Since at least one other
person seems to share my sense of its humour, are you now going to retract
your remark about me misrepresenting Mark's statement and your
trouble-making suggestion that I'm being 'patronising' towards him?
Jamie
-----Original Message-----
From: David Lace
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2016 7:57 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: a bit much
I see, so now you agree with me that it is true, and therefore we have been
in agreement all along without realising it. If that is sincerely your
position then we have been needlessly arguing for the past several days. If
it is not your sincere position, but a new one, designed to save face for
you arguing the contrary, then I forgive you. Presumably the debate can end
now.
It's a pity your nit picking on the word "definition" kept the debate going
needlessly.
----------------------Original Message------------------------
Jamie McKendrick wrote:
Who's denying its truth? Humorous or not (and trying to explain a joke is
never much fun) it's just a summary, and I see nothing to disagree with. But
where is the definition?
|