Why ex-members and never-in protesters fail to understand each other

I think I am the guilty party, at least one of them.

I'll save the Dev-T of a Comm Ev. I'll just go clean out a nearby dumpster with a toothbrush and apply for acceptance back into the group.
Mooning them sounds like a more appropriate move I reckon.
 
(...) when they were in front of the SP building (...)

Love the way you abbreviated it.

And Second gens are closer than the Mike Rinders of this world to Never ins.
True, although I think that last part has a generational component there as well. Most of the never-ins intereste din the subject tend to be on the younger side, so they find it easier to connect with second-gens who tend to be of a similar age.
 
"Tongue in cheek" does not = "passive aggressive". "Tongue in cheek" simply means expressing something in a humorous and entertaining way, to make a person smile. Your characterizing Karakorum's reply as "passive-aggressive" IS passive-aggressive, and indicative of your Scientology indoctrination ("Jokers and degraders"= "1.1, covertly hostile"). Try to think for yourself instead of defaulting to what you've input.
Hi ,
hope your all there are good.
tou are wrong.
I liked K post.
Other members use "passive agresive" posts.
thanks for giving tour opinion about my post.
 
Hi ,
hope your all there are good.
tou are wrong.
I liked K post.
Other members use "passive agresive" posts.
thanks for giving tour opinion about my post.
Oh thanks for clarifying! I too thought you were saying that I'm being 'passive-agressive' and that I am justifying it by stating taht it was tongue-in-cheek.

Glad we had that misunderstanding solved! :)
 
Marty used to call my posts on his blog non-sequitur all the time in the beginning. I had to "word clear" or in normal english look that term up because I never heared of it.

Hi ,
hope your all there are good.
tou are wrong.
I liked K post.
Other members use "passive agresive" posts.
thanks for giving tour opinion about my post.
 
Back
Top