News1 min ago
it's BLATANTLY not PATENTLY grrrr
31 Answers
Why does ITV insist upon butchering our language? First it was Jeremy Kyle on about someone being "patently ignorant" then on Emmerdale tonight it was apparently "patently obvious" - it's "blatantly"!! What is wrong with these people?!?!?!!?!?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by blink_babe13. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
goldenfield - I did read your posts and took the second as a defence of "blatantly obvious" over "patently obvious".
This misunderstanding on my part was based on both tautologies being mentioned in the original question but you choosing to castigate the latter whilst appearing to ignore the former.
Apologies for my light-hearted post being cause for you to mount such a high horse.
This misunderstanding on my part was based on both tautologies being mentioned in the original question but you choosing to castigate the latter whilst appearing to ignore the former.
Apologies for my light-hearted post being cause for you to mount such a high horse.
Did you honestly expect me just to accept you telling me that my reasoning was not sound, kempie? My first post addressed the issue of 'patently ignorant' and the second post addressed the issue of 'pressurised' - both of which I thought were correct. I made no mention at all about the tautologies of 'blatantly' or 'patently' obvious in those posts. The only time I mentioned 'patently obvious' was in a post addressed to spudqueen (who mentioned the term) and not to the original poster. If I had wanted to address the original poster on 'patently obvious' or 'blatantly obvious', can you not see that I would have done so in my first post?
I expect that if you had had your reasoning questioned you too would not have seen it as 'light-hearted' and would have defended yourself quite vigorously, yet when I do I 'mount such a high horse' !!
I hope that you may see that starting off a post 'your reasoning is not sound' can not be made into a light-hearted post with the addition of one smiley face - but if you wish to see it otherwise then please do not address any future remarks to this 'high horse' rider. Thank you.
I expect that if you had had your reasoning questioned you too would not have seen it as 'light-hearted' and would have defended yourself quite vigorously, yet when I do I 'mount such a high horse' !!
I hope that you may see that starting off a post 'your reasoning is not sound' can not be made into a light-hearted post with the addition of one smiley face - but if you wish to see it otherwise then please do not address any future remarks to this 'high horse' rider. Thank you.
In the context of you addressing the tautology of "patently obvious" and yet seeming to ignore the same attribute of "blatantly obvious" my view was that you had undermined your argument thus prompting my use of the phrase "not sound".
However I feel it "sensible" for me to have highlighted the level of contempt you displayed to a perceived slight by my use of "high horse".
However I feel it "sensible" for me to have highlighted the level of contempt you displayed to a perceived slight by my use of "high horse".
Oh for goodness sake kempie, you were wrong - you read my remarks the way you wanted to - and gave no thought whatsoever to the fact that if I had wanted to address the issue with the original poster, I would have done so in my first post.
Spudqueen did not mention blatantly obvious, only patently obvious - which was why I addressed my remarks as I did - and you made a CHOICE to read my remarks the way you wished to.
I have not showed you any contempt, unless you again have made a choice to read my remarks the way you wish to. If you are of such a mind as to confuse an attack on tautologies and the people who use them with contempt for you, then you are very much mistaken - or perhaps I should have made myself clearer by saying 'one' instead of 'you' - well sorry but I do not always do so, and even less so when I am annoyed at having my reason questioned by somebody who should have shown common sense and not said anything at all unless you were sure that what you were writing was in fact correct.
In my first three posts on this thread, I was genuinely trying to help others. What a pity that you are so small minded as to have had a go at me for being 'unsound' when, even if I had been, this would have not helped anybody in any way whatsoever. What help have you been on this thread, kempie? If there is one thing you can take for granted now, it is that blink_babe13 finds us both sad and that would not have happened if you had just had the sense to think 'does this help' - before you posted. I do not have contempt for you - I am just sad that you think you were right to have posted what you did. Oh and i will not be coming back to read any further replies from you - it just isn't worth my time.
Spudqueen did not mention blatantly obvious, only patently obvious - which was why I addressed my remarks as I did - and you made a CHOICE to read my remarks the way you wished to.
I have not showed you any contempt, unless you again have made a choice to read my remarks the way you wish to. If you are of such a mind as to confuse an attack on tautologies and the people who use them with contempt for you, then you are very much mistaken - or perhaps I should have made myself clearer by saying 'one' instead of 'you' - well sorry but I do not always do so, and even less so when I am annoyed at having my reason questioned by somebody who should have shown common sense and not said anything at all unless you were sure that what you were writing was in fact correct.
In my first three posts on this thread, I was genuinely trying to help others. What a pity that you are so small minded as to have had a go at me for being 'unsound' when, even if I had been, this would have not helped anybody in any way whatsoever. What help have you been on this thread, kempie? If there is one thing you can take for granted now, it is that blink_babe13 finds us both sad and that would not have happened if you had just had the sense to think 'does this help' - before you posted. I do not have contempt for you - I am just sad that you think you were right to have posted what you did. Oh and i will not be coming back to read any further replies from you - it just isn't worth my time.
(If you do perchance read this...)
What we have here is a complete failure of communication.
I have admitted, and tried to explain the reason why, I misunderstood your "tautology" post but you consistently misperceive my intent - perhaps you also "read my remarks the way you want to".
I share your frustration in not making myself understood.
What we have here is a complete failure of communication.
I have admitted, and tried to explain the reason why, I misunderstood your "tautology" post but you consistently misperceive my intent - perhaps you also "read my remarks the way you want to".
I share your frustration in not making myself understood.
Latest Posts
Another Carriage For The Gravy Train?
News2 mins ago
ChatterBank4 mins ago
ChatterBank4 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.