Fire Lou

[Scarey]

<!--quoteo(post=99309:date=Jun 1 2010, 08:43 AM:name=rok)-->QUOTE (rok @ Jun 1 2010, 08:43 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=99308:date=Jun 1 2010, 08:40 AM:name=Scarey)--><div class='quotetop'>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?"
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Ok, look at it from my point of view though. I see you say Lou is out to lunch. I see BT state he has a problem with people deciding Lou doesn't care and is clueless. Then I see you explain that your definition of the expression out to lunch is exasperated and paralyzed rather than carless and clueless. All along, I've never thought the expression meant what you stated. I've known it to mean exactly what BT was stating. Thus, I can only draw three conclusions. Either you don't know what the expression means, I don't know what the expression means, or you were readjusting your position on the fly. I assumed the latter and challenged you on that. If you're telling me that you feel that out to lunch is your definition, then I apologize for my assumption and I will believe you for your word. But, you have to understand that I didn't do it to be malicious. I did it because I don't know anyone else that define's the expression "out to lunch" as exasperated and paralyzed. I enjoy going out to lunch. I don't enjoy being exasperated and paralyzed.

It isn't trivial. I'm trying to find out your position. If we were talking about Jake Gyllenhaal being "out to lunch" for Prince of Persia in the movies forum, I wouldn't have made a big deal about it because this is not a Prince of Persia forum and neither you or I are that passionate about Jake Gyllenhaal.