Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2015 10:28:00 GMT -5
All my life, from childhood to now, I've been conditioned to think that directly telling a person that you weren't addressing them (even if you honestly weren't) is automatically belittling and it's the kind of shit you say when you feel like starting an argument.
What do you all think? Am I just being unreasonable here?
|
|
|
|
Post by A Platypus Rave on Aug 17, 2015 10:31:24 GMT -5
eh it's a little blunt phrased as "I wasn't talking to you"
But something like I'm on the phone, or I was talking to x, I don't think so.
|
|
Push R Truth
Patti Mayonnaise
Unique and Special Snowflake, and a pants-less heathen.
Perpetually Constipated
Posts: 39,307
|
Post by Push R Truth on Aug 17, 2015 10:32:01 GMT -5
Depends on the context honestly.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2015 10:50:54 GMT -5
Its an irrelevancy people say when they have nothing to actually say as a rebuttal.
If its a case of someone gets called out on spouting bull shit to someone else by a third party, then its them just trying to back pedal by acting like the fact they weren't directly addressing the person somehow absolves them of being wrong or idiotic about something.
Its like when dummies go, "Well, I'm entitled to my opinion!" or "They have the right to think what they want!"
Sure, its a true statement, but its completely unrelated to whether or not that opinion is foolish or simply erroneous.
Unless you're talking about where actually someone mishears something intended for someone else. As in,
Person A to Person C: "Hey, pass me the coffee!"
Person B: "You want me to hand you the coffee?"
Person A: "I wasn't talking to you. I was talking to Person C. "
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2015 11:06:02 GMT -5
I would phrase it like "oh, sorry I was talking to X"
|
|
|
|
Post by Magic knows Black Lives Matter on Aug 17, 2015 11:09:24 GMT -5
Not at all. The hell, haha? If I wasn't talking to you, I wasn't talking to you, b. Sorry if that bugs them but I literally just told them a fact.
|
|
agent817
Fry's dog Seymour
Doesn't Know Whose Ring It Is
Posts: 21,296
Member is Online
|
Post by agent817 on Aug 17, 2015 12:09:02 GMT -5
Well, some of the time when someone who I was not talking to responds to what I say, I will say sometimes say, "I was telling _____ that..." or, "I was speaking to ______."
|
|
|
|
Post by 2coldMack is even more baffled on Aug 17, 2015 12:12:18 GMT -5
It's a little blunt, but I don't think it's inherently rude, no. Certainly it's possible to MAKE it rude, though.
|
|
wakko
Samurai Cop
Knows This
BAAAGH!!!!
Posts: 2,212 
Member is Online
|
Post by wakko on Aug 17, 2015 14:28:16 GMT -5
I would answer, but you're not talking to me.  |
|
|
|
Post by KAMALARAMBO: BOOMSHAKALAKA!!! on Aug 17, 2015 16:59:57 GMT -5
Pretty much.
|
|
kidglov3s
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Wants her Shot
Who is Tiger Maskooo?
Posts: 15,870
|
Post by kidglov3s on Aug 17, 2015 17:03:15 GMT -5
All my life, from childhood to now, I've been conditioned to think that directly telling a person that you weren't addressing them (even if you honestly weren't) is automatically belittling and it's the kind of shit you say when you feel like starting an argument. What do you all think? Am I just being unreasonable here? Man that just seems like a mindset when you're on the prowl to find a reason to have something you can retaliate against. |
|
"Magic" Mark Hurr
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Here, have some chili dogs
Not related to Phantasmo
Posts: 15,824
|
Post by "Magic" Mark Hurr on Aug 17, 2015 17:24:19 GMT -5
That's why respond with, "But I'm talkin to YOU!"
|
|
|
|
Post by rapidfire187 on Aug 17, 2015 17:47:03 GMT -5
"Not you". Simple, effective and no negative connotations.
|
|
