Confused malcontents swilling Chardonnay while awaiting the Zombie Apocalypse.
4897 messages in 209 discussions
Latest 12/30/21 by NISSY (NISSY2)
821 messages in 15 discussions
Latest Sep-29 by ElDotardo
5076 messages in 124 discussions
Latest Sep-29 by NISSY (NISSY2)
Latest Sep-27 by NISSY (NISSY2)
Latest Sep-25 by NISSY (NISSY2)
In this context, yes, your being diplomatic is passive aggressive because the language used while giving an implication leaves you free of the responsibility of your intent.
So what response is posible to an ad hom sent to me would your rules allow.
A bit of mockery. Mention Yosemite Sam.
If you object to the criteria I use, why be a passive-aggressive coward
This is the second time I have quoted you on this.
Note you have not provided a sample of my post where I said she was a coward.
See above post.
I think you're a bad man and have been winding Jenifer up to a nearly intolerable degree.
G=G+2 for ignoring the fact that I explained why this is not evidence of her being a coward (which would be if I had called her a coward). Your error is either/or one of grammar or missing context. In grammar to call one a coward requires an indicative sntence, but the "if" here means it is subjunctive, not really a coward. In addition if I said "you are a coward" this would be an ad hom if was not based n specific behavior, so in context the "be" instead of "are" means "why are acting as if you were a coward." If you object to or do not understand my previous answer, it is your responsibility to respond to it, and disagree with some reason. The "G" in this case is for choosing to repeat yourself while ignoring my explanation in terms of language. Using a Trump example. Trump is not passive-aggressive, he is just aggressive when he says Hillary is a crook. if a passive-agresive he would have said that her actions seeme to be criminal, what makes this passive, is that he left out the obvious part "(seem) to me ...". Never called her a coward, only that her actions were cowardly because her langauge did not take responsibility for her message, which would be required <<IF>> she was interested in an honest discussion.
As an outsider to this conversation,it is OK to have an opinion. However simply to express it without any backup or status is a waste of time, merely a meaningless vote, where a majority vote does not necessarily express sreality. And is certainly OT to the thread.
That is a long winded grammar lesson that would be better served with a simple apology for your attacks on Czoe.
"Why be a passive aggressive coward?" is a passive aggressive way to call someone a passive aggressive coward, and therefore cowardly.
Just to be passive aggressive about it.