A correction to one of my earlier military history metaphors, Keith.

I referred to Thermopylae.

I should have said: "Cannae"

Kieth, steady on,

There's no need to take that tone with someone because you disagree with them.

You point out: "your final comment doesn't seem express any admission you might have been wrong." Right? Wrong? Is that what this is all about? Because my interpretation differs from yours you imagine I'm pointing fingers?

No, the reason there is no admission that I might have been wrong is because all I was doing was suggesting an alternative reading.As you yourself point out "as we are entitled" to do. I imagine my first post was not a model of clarity if you think "your latest explanation is far different to the ...[first]". It was not. I was merely expanding upon my (unchanged) interpretation.

No, I didn't miss the little joke - I guess you are just one of those people who doesn't think much of irony if you saw it as: "a blatantly discrimitory(sic) and derogrative(sic) description of native English speakers who only knew one language."

I can assure you I have never knowingly squim-ed in my whole life - my posting history also substantiates the fact that I have no problem at all admitting when I am wrong.

If you have ever seen evidence of my ducking, diving and weaving rather than admit my "comprehension shortcomings" then I am very surprised. I frequently admit on this forum that there are posts/articles I do not understand. I was always sure I did so directly.

All I was doing was suggesting that because the word "ignorant" is so often used incorrectly some people think it is a pejorative. My aim in posting was to reassure anyone who thought they were being called dumb that they weren't.

But as you assure me that you and the majority of other posters realise this and still think those who only speak English are being accused of stupidity or whatever, then go ahead. Throw the victim mantle wide and make sure everyone snuggles comfortably into it. No skin off my nose...buttercup.

Romany

Let's have a little refresher here.

You made as statement that did not take into account all of the author's ideas and statements. You applied a very narrow intrepretation to ignorant and never once indicated anything more complex may have been intended. In doing so also you used snide comments.

I challenged your intrepretation and 'gave as good as I got.'

You responded

'Kieth (sic),

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear.

What I meant in the above post was that the reaction of many people seems to be that the writer is using the word "ignorant" as a pejorative. That he is saying, in fact, that anyone who does not speak another language is an ignoramus - that being the pejorative form.'

Of course that was as incorrect as your first endeavour and just showed you as ignorant of the all the author's scribblings.

Your first post was utterly clear.

Either you didn't mean what you'd previously said or you are backsliding.

We all understand a put down regardless of irony. And that was what that 'joke' was.

What you need not do is enter into a robust discussion snidely casting personal criticisms and not expect a response, in kind ... mate.

Your honker is of absolutely no interest to me. But here you are showing you can give plenty of criticism but not take a bit in return. In real life that would result in a skinned nose ... pansy.

Kieth,

The fact that you continue to react in the way you have done means that you have completely misunderstood what I meant. As the only other poster to comment on what I said saw nothing personal in it nor considered I had contradicted myself, I can only assume that I have touched a personal nerve with you here. This positions the argument squarely in the personal where I have no interest in being.

I did not enter the thread to be unfair, critical, malicious, superior - any of the synonyms that can be attached to the word snide. If you do not now understand my point - and each successive post illustrates that you don't - there is nothing else to say.

Romany

What utter rubbish.

Why did you initially only single out my comment to use as an example?
Why did you initially need to specifically criticise me?
Why did you need to be snide?
Why couldn't you simply accept you initially lacked breath of intrepretation?
Why did you then feel you needed to explain?
Why did you then need to backslide?

Why are you now so blind and stubborn?

Mil -observer,

'A correction to one of my earlier military history metaphors, Keith.
I referred to Thermopylae.
I should have said: "Cannae"'

You should have said nothing.

Sorry, I missed again.

Try "Isandhlwana"