Yuku free message boards

i'm going to add one brief note to this discussion, since mention has been made of what could succinctly be described as "the smiley thing", which i alluded to in a couple of my posts. i thank matt for having addressed the issue regarding the "cue" thing, incidentally.

to refer specifically to trevor's comment:

Quote:

---

I just get tired of the remarks that seem to be then excused by saying you had a smilie at the end.

---

although i fear a word or two has been accidentally omitted from the above, i think i get the general gist of what trevor is trying to say on the basis of the occasions on which he's said it in the past. so, unless i'm mistaken and this is something entirely new, here goes my clear-cut explanation for what i hope will need to be the only time.

speaking for myself and matthew, as i've spoken to him about this as part of this thread, neither of us ever uses emoticons to disguise the meaning of anything. if we include a smiley, it is for the purpose of its existence: to note clearly that a light-hearted, positive tone is intended, and that no negative meaning should be inferred as none exists. speaking for myself, if i ever wished to insult anyone on this forum -- which i certainly would not -- i would do so in a direct manner which left no ambiguity. (to do otherwise would, i feel, defeat the purpose of making an insult in the first place.) so i can assure everyone reading this that if either matthew or myself uses a smiley, it is to strengthen the connotations which ordinarily accompany such an emoticon, and for no other purpose.

hopefully everybody can now rest assured that no ulterior motives will ever emerge from our part in any of these discussions, and especially that none should be inferred. if we are ever cheeky in tone, this is often in a self-depricating manner (e.g. my reference to theme music in the blakes legacy forum), and we are not the types to badmouth any member of our audience on this forum. as always, we apologise unreservedly if it ever appears otherwise, but such could not be further from our intentions, and we do endeavour at all opportunities to vet our own words in the hope of removing any unwanted and unintended allusions we may happen to spot. okay, i can't speak for matt on this one, but i know i certainly do. point being, as always, we do not abide by insensitivity (which is half of what we go on about sometimes), and none is ever intended.

however, to cite an example where potential ambiguity does exist, i refer interested readers to my first smiley use in this thread. although it could be construed as a cheeky jab at trevor, the purpose of the smiley was to diffuse any antagonism by highlighting that the remark is not made in all seriousness, but is a joke made out of prior negative context. of course, if trevor's sense of humour does not extend to the use of a serious remark of his out of all serious context (as is the root of much comedy in the world), then i will certainly attempt to refrain from doing so in future.

please note that none of the above has been intended as any sort of accusation or attack, and is meant purely as a formal explanation in the hope that future misunderstanding might be avoided.

i hope you got in there before my last edit!

hmm... ought to justify this post a bit more... well, i suppose the fact that i've edited my previous post about three times supports one of the points i made.

erm, am i off the hook now?