Seemed to be a fairly light statement to me. Not my fault if it's spot on.
I didn't imply any such thing, merely questioned your selection of a word that has no relevance to the topic you were discussing. Hardly, as I don't let faceless individuals on a mailing list tweak me in such a manner. Yet again you are wrong, big surprise there. When used in the context of IQ, the word low relates to a specific range of the IQ scale. Had you used "lower" or "lower than", well I could have accepted that but you would still have missed the mark by a wide margin I'd be willing to bet. There are plenty of people who will admit that they don't have a sense of humour. Sure there are people who will insist that they are funny but they just aren't. Now, if I were lacking in that sense, I'd be the first to admit it but, alas, that is just not the case. I'm still waiting for you to explain how your analogies work when none of the assumptions you made were accurate. ----- ::moii ----- Ricardo Aráoz wrote: > Michael Oke, II wrote: >> I sincerely doubt that you are capable of explaining it in anything >> other than simple terms. >> > Oh come now Michael! Lighten up! >> I see, you don't think that there is a word to adequately describe >> discrimination based on religious preference so you substituted a word >> that is sure to fan the flames. Racism has nothing to do with it. >> > Still waiting for that magic word you imply exists. >> Oh and I'm not being discriminating of any group but thanks for lumping >> me in with some group that you see in the dark. Wait might that be a >> pot calling the kettle black situation? I think so. >> > Well, 'lumping' you was only meant wind you up. Did it work? >> Now how does either of your weak analogies work since I don't have a low >> IQ, am not humourless nor was I born in the US? Oops. >> > Your IQ is low enough as to not notice that "low" denotes relativity, > and you did not say relative to what. Of course your IQ is not low > relative to a dog. > No one who lacks sense of humour will admit it. > > [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
