Apple's snarky Samsung post not good enough for British judge

[GommeInc]

Something in the first post of a 3 page discussion isn't in the middle

Seeing as we were in the middle of discussing why the decision was fair and you stating that the Government should be involved, making no hint as to it actually being sarcasm, was a poor way to do it. Besides, it was really pointless to say it, as everyone knows the Government can't get involved with Court matters. It sort of made you look a bit silly, when sarcasm usually portrays hilarity and wit (albeit low).

[HotelUser]

Seeing as we were in the middle of discussing why the decision was fair and you stating that the Government should be involved, making no hint as to it actually being sarcasm, was a poor way to do it. Besides, it was really pointless to say it, as everyone knows the Government can't get involved with Court matters. It sort of made you look a bit silly, when sarcasm usually portrays hilarity and wit (albeit low).

My sarcastic statement is mutually exclusive of me using the word government in place of court elsewhere [sarcasm] (I can post me saying I'll now correctly use the term court in lieu of government on my website if you'd like) [/sarcasm], and I still didn't mention David Cameron in the middle of this thread as you've suggested, but at the start...

[GommeInc]

My sarcastic statement is mutually exclusive of me using the word government in place of court elsewhere [sarcasm] (I can post me saying I'll now correctly use the term court in lieu of government on my website if you'd like) [/sarcasm], and I still didn't mention David Cameron in the middle of this thread as you've suggested, but at the start...

I only saw it half way, saying it at the beginning and carrying on saying it onto about page 2 is worse really as it suggests you strongly believe he could have a say, usually sarcasm is picked up immediately or the person who said it doesn't keep suggesting the Government should step in to change the Court's decision.

Are you sure you were not being serious? Because it seems like you were, but because it's was coming off as a bit of a silly comment you're now too embarrassed to admit you were serious, and are now claiming it was sarcasm to try and limit damage? Especially when Government and Judiciary are two very different systems in most countries. The Canadian and American Government and Court systems mimic ours in the sense they are separate from each other...

[HotelUser]

I only saw it half way, saying it at the beginning and carrying on saying it onto about page 2 is worse really as it suggests you strongly believe he could have a say, usually sarcasm is picked up immediately or the person who said it doesn't keep suggesting the Government should step in to change the Court's decision.

Are you sure you were not being serious? Because it seems like you were, but because it's was coming off as a bit of a silly comment you're now too embarrassed to admit you were serious, and are now claiming it was sarcasm to try and limit damage? Especially when Government and Judiciary are two very different systems in most countries. The Canadian and American Government and Court systems mimic ours in the sense they are separate from each other...

If you thought this was serious:

Perhaps David Cameron should get a judge to instruct every website exactly what to say and what not to say about the Conservative party :rolleyes:.

Especially considering:

1. It came at the end of the post
2. It contains an eyeroll emote at the end
3. If it were an actual suggestion it would be completely stupid

Then all I have to say to you is: god help you Gomme.

[GommeInc]

If you thought this was serious:



Especially considering:

1. It came at the end of the post
2. It contains an eyeroll emote at the end
3. If it were an actual suggestion it would be completely stupid

Then all I have to say to you is: god help you Gomme.

Explain this:

To be fair I said David Cameron should ask a judge, and either your government or supreme court (if it works like it does in Canada) could both stop this crap from happening.

Doesn't seem very sarcastic to me... If it was, you would of told Matt long before this post you were being sarcastic. Besides, it's not crap at all - you're the only person disagreeing with what was a perfectly good corporate court case for once, and you wouldn't keep suggesting the Government (and/or David Cameron, both synonymous with each other) to step in when there's nothing wrong.

[HotelUser]

Explain this:

Doesn't seem very sarcastic to me... If it was, you would of told Matt long before this post you were being sarcastic. Besides, it's not crap at all - you're the only person disagreeing with what was a perfectly good corporate court case for once, and you wouldn't keep suggesting the Government (and/or David Cameron, both synonymous with each other) to step in when there's nothing wrong.

I was telling Matt what I had said in my initial post because he misread :S :S :S

After my first post you would have to be a total moron to think I was being serious, because the very idea that in any nice country a leader would intentionally and unjustly suppress the media is stupid.

As usual you have turned a perfectly fine discussion into something trivial, which misrepresents something someone else said, congratulations.

If you can't read into an eye roll hinting at sarcasm here then there must be something seriously wrong with you, and you should get checked (and me telling you to get checked isn't sarcasm )

[GommeInc]

I was telling Matt what I had said in my initial post because he misread :S :S :S

After my first post you would have to be a total moron to think I was being serious, because the very idea that in any nice country a leader would intentionally and unjustly suppress the media is stupid.

As usual you have turned a perfectly fine discussion into something trivial, which misrepresents something someone else said, congratulations.

If you can't read into an eye roll hinting at sarcasm here then there must be something seriously wrong with you, and you should get checked (and me telling you to get checked isn't sarcasm )

Hey, you're the one that kept referring to David Cameron/the Government throughout the thread, because you found the decision unfair. The decision can't be overturned, and what's shocking is I think you fell for your own sarcasm, because you do keep referring to Cameron/the Government and dropped the sarcasm bomb way too far into the thread, as if you yourself even believed your own sarcasm until it was becoming irrelevant to the thread. The facts are: The Government can't change Court decisions when the two systems are separate - completely ignoring what has been said by myself, Tom and Matt :rolleyes:

Go home David, you lost this argument - no one agrees with you over the court decision being unfair

EDIT: Also, I think you'll find you derailed this thread. There was no reason for you to add that "sarcastic" comment in your first post, because it was a really stupid thing to say.

EDIT 2: I like how you end threads when you've lost with -rep, you seem to get really frustrated with yourself

[HotelUser]

Hey, you're the one that kept referring to David Cameron/the Government throughout the thread,

Keep referring to David Cameron?! I mentioned him in my original post and when other people brought it up to point out that I was being sarcastic.

because you found the decision unfair.

How the hell does David Cameron have to do with this decision? Nothing. That's right, so when I brought it up I was obviously being sarcastic.

The decision can't be overturned, and what's shocking is I think you fell for your own sarcasm, because you do keep referring to Cameron/the Government and dropped the sarcasm bomb way too far into the thread

I dropped the "sarcastic" bomb in the first post with the wink at the end and the fact that oh yeah, what I said was clearly impractical and blatant sarcasm.

, as if you yourself even believed your own sarcasm until it was becoming irrelevant to the thread.

I never believed my own sarcasm because only a moron would believe that David Cameron would attempt to force the media to never insult the Conservatives.

The facts are: The Government can't change Court decisions when the two systems are separate - completely ignoring what has been said by myself, Tom and Matt :rolleyes:

Yes, and I already said myself earlier that I used the word government where I should of said courts, and I also said this is mutually exclusive to my David Cameron sarcastic comment, but you didn't read the thread because you never really do.

Go home David, you lost this argument - no one agrees with you over the court decision being unfair

1. In the first post I said:

On a more serious note, although I think all these companies are making a complete mess with these patent suits

Later on I said:

Yeah. With the 14 day thing Apple is being petty about it

Oh, yeah, and then there was this:

If the courts determined that Samsung did not infringe then that ruling is fine with me

So I guess your statement here is just as poorly constructed as everything else you do.

2. Remember when you said:

It's not irrelevant just because you say it is

Hey-- yeah, so just because you want to believe this was some sort of argument I "lost" or something, doesn't mean that makes it true.

--

You don't get to tell me how to think, you don't get to be the dictator which tells me what's true and what's false. I was having a perfectly fine discussion with Tomm and then you had to barge in and turn the entire thread into useless dribble which has nothing to do with this entire topic, and which assumes I said something which it is quite clear I never said in the first place.

For someone who sure does like to accuse me of things (which I never say), for someone who sure likes to put extremely stupid words into my mouth (which don't represent my opinions), and for someone who's extremely judgemental about how I word everything under the sun, you sure don't practise what you preach, and you sure do, in my opinion, suck.