I'm peopleand like most 'people' who are intelligent and disdainful of petty and pointless television I ignored her back then. I'd like to ignore her as much now but 'people' keep having some morbid fascination with the vile woman and post images of her on b3ta.
I certainly don't recall ever caring enough about her to call for her burning at the stake. And remember, I am people.
I think you are getting your social groups and species confused.
(I certainly don't recall ever caring enough about her to call for her burning at the stake. And remember, I am people.
I think you are getting your social groups and species confused.
Pasanonic 's been known to cause insanity in laboratory mice,
Wed 18 Feb 2009, 23:16,
archived)
fuck it, i'm clicking this Tom OBedlam I have control of a tank,
Wed 18 Feb 2009, 23:18,
archived)
Unlessthere's a whole group of you logging in under a single id, I'd have said you were a person, not people. Are you really saying that when I used the term "people" you thought I was referring to the entire population of the UK instead of a subset? Sorry, I don't know all their names, so I used a catch-all term.
(,
Wed 18 Feb 2009, 23:24,
archived)
I don't want to speak for him, but just incase he's ignored you by now (very likely)You said people collectively, but only involved 'the sun' monkeys.
(
Nathanial Hornblower,
Wed 18 Feb 2009, 23:28,
archived)
if by labelling mea 'person' you somehow exclude me from the group 'people' Then it's worse than I thought.
You know what I meant, I just did not type some words to save time. It now appears you also did not type a lot of words. The difference being that with my omission the meaning was clear. Your omission allows for you to claim you meant anything.
If you mean to say " a few Daily Mail readers with nothing better to do " then it might be prudent to say so rather than use an umbrella term that encompasses everyone.
No need to get shirty with me just because your language structure is flawed.
(You know what I meant, I just did not type some words to save time. It now appears you also did not type a lot of words. The difference being that with my omission the meaning was clear. Your omission allows for you to claim you meant anything.
If you mean to say " a few Daily Mail readers with nothing better to do " then it might be prudent to say so rather than use an umbrella term that encompasses everyone.
No need to get shirty with me just because your language structure is flawed.
Pasanonic 's been known to cause insanity in laboratory mice,
Wed 18 Feb 2009, 23:32,
archived)
I'm not trying to be shirty.I just did not type some words to save time.
I assumed - obviously incorrectly from the reaction - "people" and "tabloids" would be recognisable in this context as shorthand for "a few Daily Mail readers with nothing better to do. And maybe The Sun, The Star, and Daily Sport. And those that don't actually follow news at all, just go by the topics on Jeremy Kyle", not "everyone in the world except me". Next time, if there is one, I'll spell everything out...
(,
Wed 18 Feb 2009, 23:46,
archived)
I assumed - obviously incorrectly from the reaction - "people" and "tabloids" would be recognisable in this context as shorthand for "a few Daily Mail readers with nothing better to do. And maybe The Sun, The Star, and Daily Sport. And those that don't actually follow news at all, just go by the topics on Jeremy Kyle", not "everyone in the world except me". Next time, if there is one, I'll spell everything out...