29 Jul 16
Originally posted by FMFI was simply responding to your question in accordance to (and with) the way your question was worded. You said:
You mean that I am not a "human" so I can't know "humans"? What is it it you are satirizing exactly with a quip like this? Are you taking the mickey out of the 'substance' of Suzianne's swing & blurt stuff? 😉
What's wrong with my interaction with humans?
What animal, vegetable or mineral do you normally interact with?
29 Jul 16
Originally posted by lemon limeI still don't get what your satire is aimed at. I would have thought that I am replete with human faults and weaknesses, and that THAT is the crux of the 'problem' that some have with me, so I don't see how satire based on me somehow not being human [and therefore not being able to "know" humans] works on any level. What's the witty or funny angle to it? It seems really clumsy. Perhaps it is some American thing that I am unfamiliar with.
What animal, vegetable or mineral do you normally interact with?
29 Jul 16
Originally posted by FMFThe way in which your question was worded suggests you might not be human. Who else would you be having a conversation with if not another human?
I still don't get what your satire is aimed at. I would have thought that I am replete with human faults and weaknesses, and that THAT is the crux of the 'problem' that some have with me, so I don't see how satire based on me somehow not being human [and therefore not being able to "know" humans] works on any level. What's the witty or funny angle to it? It seems really clumsy. Perhaps it is some American thing that I am unfamiliar with.
Originally posted by lemon limeI still don't get what you think you are satirizing.
The way in which your question was worded suggests you might not be human. Who else would you be having a conversation with if not another human?
If I were to mock Suzianne for her perma-scorn forum denunciations and paranoia and offered that they were caused by her lack of human interaction skills, and she said "What's the matter with my human interaction skills?" and then you chipped and said "It takes a human to know humans", would that be a really funny thing for you to say?
Your quip strikes me as being a kind of Rupert Pupkin thing to say. If I'm wrong and there's something witty going on, show me how.
29 Jul 16
Originally posted by FMFAnd I still don't get why you can't see this as anything but satire.
I still don't get what you think you are satirizing.
if I were to mock Suzianne for her perma-scorn forum denunciations and paranoia and offered that they were caused by her lack of interaction skills, and she said "What's the matter with my human interaction skills?" and then you chipped and said "It takes a human to know humans", would that be a really fun ...[text shortened]... d of Rupert Pupkin thing to say. If I'm wrong and there's something witty going on, show me how.
Maybe this is an example of the single minded "tunnel vision" Very Rusty mentioned... you spot a bit of satire and then automatically assume all of it must be satire.
29 Jul 16
Originally posted by lemon limeThe issue is where is the humour. It's Suzianne who has been using the words "human" and "human interaction" repeatedly, not me. This started with here saying this:
And I still don't get why you can't see this as anything but satire.
Maybe this is an example of the single minded "tunnel vision" Very Rusty mentioned... you spot a bit of satire and then automatically assume all of it must be satire.
"You never did seem to get a thorough handle on even the most trivial of human interaction. Your view of most posters, indeed, of almost any normal human interaction, except that which falls into your own extremely narrow range of experience, is almost always tinged with fear, narcissism, envy and/or confusion."
Surely, you are satirizing Suzianne if you then seek to play on this peculiar tack she is taking? But if you are, the question remains, how is it funny? I take it you know who Rupert Pupkin was.
Originally posted by FMFSurely I was satirizing you. I should know, because I'm the human who was doing the satirizing.
The issue is where is the humour. It's Suzianne who has been using the words "human" and "human interaction" repeatedly, not me. This started with here saying this:
"You never did seem to get a thorough handle on even the most trivial of human interaction. Your view of most posters, indeed, of almost any normal human interaction, except that which falls into ...[text shortened]... But if you are, the question remains, how is it funny? I take it you know who Rupert Pupkin was.
And no, I don't know who Rupert Pumpkin was. Is he deceased?
29 Jul 16
Originally posted by lemon limeI still don't get where you're coming from. Suzianne behaves like a whirling dervish day in day out here and you never satirize it and yet here you are suddenly poking fun at me for her use of the word "human"? It seems rather odd.
Surely I was satirizing you. And I should know, because I'm the human who was doing the satirizing.
Originally posted by FMFWow, you really are self absorbed! But I digress from your world of fantasy...
I still don't get where you're coming from. Suzianne behaves like a whirling dervish day in day out here and you never satirize it and yet here you are suddenly poking fun at me for her use of the word "human"? It seems rather odd.
Yeah, I never criticize or make fun of anything supergirl says.
29 Jul 16
Originally posted by lemon limeBut it was Suzianne who tripped over her own hyperbole by talking about "human" interaction, not me. The issue here is surely who you are absorbed with, not me. 😉
Wow, you really are self absorbed! But I digress from your world of fantasy...
Yeah, I never criticize or make fun of anything supergirl says.