06-01-2010, 09:43 AM
<!--quoteo(post=99308:date=Jun 1 2010, 08:40 AM:name=Scarey)-->QUOTE (Scarey @ Jun 1 2010, 08:40 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=99307:date=Jun 1 2010, 08:32 AM:name=rok)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rok @ Jun 1 2010, 08:32 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Nope, that's exactly what I meant. No backpeddling on my part, but thanks for the thought. Maybe my idea of what the expression means is wrong but this is getting really ridiculous now if we are debating the meanings of expressions in order to make a point. Reread some of my other posts. It isn't the first time that I've used the word exasperated with regard to Lou. I'm not letting this get personal now, so I would also ask that you guys don't as well.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I understand that you've used exasperated, but that doesn't mean you can't think he's clueless too. I'm not making this personal either and most of my comments have not been directed at you. I don't think anything I said was any more or less personal than "thanks for the thought".
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Dude, how would you expect me to respond to your post when I wasn't trying to mislead anyone over something this trivial?
And would you have preferred it if I said "willfully ignorant" instead of "out to lunch?"
I understand that you've used exasperated, but that doesn't mean you can't think he's clueless too. I'm not making this personal either and most of my comments have not been directed at you. I don't think anything I said was any more or less personal than "thanks for the thought".
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Dude, how would you expect me to respond to your post when I wasn't trying to mislead anyone over something this trivial?
And would you have preferred it if I said "willfully ignorant" instead of "out to lunch?"