|
O/T Personality Test
|
O/T Personality Test
jlrogers±³© wrote: http://similarminds.com/myers-briggs-jung.html INTJ -- jlrogers±³© INTP INTP - "Architect". Greatest precision in thought and language. Can readily discern contradictions and inconsistencies. The world exists primarily to be understood. 3.3% of total population. RB 35s5 NY |
O/T Personality Test
jlrogers±³© wrote:
http://similarminds.com/myers-briggs-jung.html INTJ ESTJ-Administrator I used the Jungian Personality test when I was still in HR for hiring executive staff... It's one of the best HR tools out there and is fairly accurate as long as the testee is honest and has some slef-perception...problems arise, though, when people have convinced themselves they are something they are not... |
O/T Personality Test
In article ,
jlrogers±³© wrote: http://similarminds.com/myers-briggs-jung.html INTJ -- jlrogers±³© ENTP - it never changes. -- Capt. JG @@ www.sailnow.com |
O/T Personality Test
On Sun, 04 Jun 2006 15:04:39 GMT, "jlrogers±³©" wrote:
http://similarminds.com/myers-briggs-jung.html INTJ ISTJ - "Trustee" Frank |
O/T Personality Test
"jlrogers±³©" wrote ...
http://similarminds.com/myers-briggs-jung.html INTJ Scotty wrote: PIEW - Perfect In Every Way, don't change a thing. .002% of population. Actually, that was supposed to be PEEE-iuwwww, a common acronym for "the smell isn't so bad, it's the burning in my eyes." DSK |
O/T Personality Test
"jlrogers±³©" wrote in message om... http://similarminds.com/myers-briggs-jung.html INTJ PIEW - Perfect In Every Way, don't change a thing. .002% of population. Scotty |
O/T Personality Test
"Donal" wrote in message ... "jlrogers±³©" wrote in message om... http://similarminds.com/myers-briggs-jung.html INTJ ESTP ESTP - "Promotor". Action! When present, things begin to happen. Fiercely competitive. Entrepreneur. Often uses shock effect to get attention. Negotiator par excellence. 4.3% of total population. ------------------------ I like the "Often uses shock effect to get attention." bit. I actually do that in everyday life,. Ditto. Perhaps that's why Donal and I don't get along--we're too similar? That's scary. Max |
O/T Personality Test
"Maxprop" wrote in message ink.net... "Donal" wrote in message ... "jlrogers±³©" wrote in message om... http://similarminds.com/myers-briggs-jung.html INTJ ESTP ESTP - "Promotor". Action! When present, things begin to happen. Fiercely competitive. Entrepreneur. Often uses shock effect to get attention. Negotiator par excellence. 4.3% of total population. ------------------------ I like the "Often uses shock effect to get attention." bit. I actually do that in everyday life,. Ditto. Perhaps that's why Donal and I don't get along--we're too similar? What makes you think that we don't get along? I always thought that you were a fairly decent sort of chap. You may rest assured that I will not disagree with you unless you write something stupid. Regards Donal -- |
O/T Personality Test
"Donal" wrote in message ... "Maxprop" wrote in message ink.net... "Donal" wrote in message ... "jlrogers±³©" wrote in message om... http://similarminds.com/myers-briggs-jung.html INTJ ESTP ESTP - "Promotor". Action! When present, things begin to happen. Fiercely competitive. Entrepreneur. Often uses shock effect to get attention. Negotiator par excellence. 4.3% of total population. ------------------------ I like the "Often uses shock effect to get attention." bit. I actually do that in everyday life,. Ditto. Perhaps that's why Donal and I don't get along--we're too similar? What makes you think that we don't get along? I always thought that you were a fairly decent sort of chap. You may rest assured that I will not disagree with you unless you write something stupid. . . . meaning something you disagree with politically. Sure. Max |
O/T Personality Test
"Mys Terry" wrote in message ... On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 03:12:50 GMT, "Maxprop" wrote: "Donal" wrote in message ... "Maxprop" wrote in message ink.net... "Donal" wrote in message ... "jlrogers±³©" wrote in message om... http://similarminds.com/myers-briggs-jung.html INTJ ESTP ESTP - "Promotor". Action! When present, things begin to happen. Fiercely competitive. Entrepreneur. Often uses shock effect to get attention. Negotiator par excellence. 4.3% of total population. ------------------------ I like the "Often uses shock effect to get attention." bit. I actually do that in everyday life,. Ditto. Perhaps that's why Donal and I don't get along--we're too similar? What makes you think that we don't get along? I always thought that you were a fairly decent sort of chap. You may rest assured that I will not disagree with you unless you write something stupid. . . . meaning something you disagree with politically. Sure. Max Oh, look! Maxdope just wrote something stupid! Oh look! Binary Bill just wrote something completely typical for him. (read: meaningless and vapid) Max |
O/T Personality Test
katy wrote: jlrogers±³© wrote: http://similarminds.com/myers-briggs-jung.html INTJ ESTJ-Administrator I used the Jungian Personality test when I was still in HR for hiring executive staff... It's one of the best HR tools out there and is fairly accurate as long as the testee is honest and has some slef-perception...problems arise, though, when people have convinced themselves they are something they are not... As a caindate for any position you research company policy's, ethics, workstyle, culture, ect... before you go and get grilled by the HR wennie. That makes filling out any personality test a simple process that you taylor to fit the companies want's and desires to a T. They are useless unless your testing ditch diggers or bed pan washers, looking to screen out a physco. HR tool....Bwahahahahahahahahaha Joe |
O/T Personality Test
katy wrote: Joe wrote: katy wrote: jlrogers±³© wrote: http://similarminds.com/myers-briggs-jung.html INTJ ESTJ-Administrator I used the Jungian Personality test when I was still in HR for hiring executive staff... It's one of the best HR tools out there and is fairly accurate as long as the testee is honest and has some slef-perception...problems arise, though, when people have convinced themselves they are something they are not... As a caindate for any position you research company policy's, ethics, workstyle, culture, ect... before you go and get grilled by the HR wennie. That makes filling out any personality test a simple process that you taylor to fit the companies want's and desires to a T. They are useless unless your testing ditch diggers or bed pan washers, looking to screen out a physco. HR tool....Bwahahahahahahahahaha Joe Yes, some tests can be messed with, but most testing companies have built-ins (that's why the professional versions of that same test have over 200 questions...) The questions are posed over and over again in diferent frameworks...if you mess about too much, it triggers that there is something wrong and the score indicates that....it is a tool, not the end-all be-all for hiring...it is only used after a decision has been made to proceed and is not used AS the decision. So it's hocus pocus that has the ability to override a face to face decision? They are not good tools. Did you make canidates stick a finger in a bowl of water and look for ripples? HR needs no tools other than paper clips, and maybe rubber finger boots to protect from shuffeling paper, HR people are not decision makers at most companies. The only test that should be given are ones that relate to what value that canidate has to offer your company. Infact he should be working for you in an interview, making you money. If he can not do that...who want's him or her anyway? Joe |
O/T Personality Test
Joe wrote:
katy wrote: Joe wrote: katy wrote: jlrogers±³© wrote: http://similarminds.com/myers-briggs-jung.html INTJ ESTJ-Administrator I used the Jungian Personality test when I was still in HR for hiring executive staff... It's one of the best HR tools out there and is fairly accurate as long as the testee is honest and has some slef-perception...problems arise, though, when people have convinced themselves they are something they are not... As a caindate for any position you research company policy's, ethics, workstyle, culture, ect... before you go and get grilled by the HR wennie. That makes filling out any personality test a simple process that you taylor to fit the companies want's and desires to a T. They are useless unless your testing ditch diggers or bed pan washers, looking to screen out a physco. HR tool....Bwahahahahahahahahaha Joe Yes, some tests can be messed with, but most testing companies have built-ins (that's why the professional versions of that same test have over 200 questions...) The questions are posed over and over again in diferent frameworks...if you mess about too much, it triggers that there is something wrong and the score indicates that....it is a tool, not the end-all be-all for hiring...it is only used after a decision has been made to proceed and is not used AS the decision. So it's hocus pocus that has the ability to override a face to face decision? They are not good tools. Did you make canidates stick a finger in a bowl of water and look for ripples? HR needs no tools other than paper clips, and maybe rubber finger boots to protect from shuffeling paper, HR people are not decision makers at most companies. The only test that should be given are ones that relate to what value that canidate has to offer your company. Infact he should be working for you in an interview, making you money. If he can not do that...who want's him or her anyway? Joe I get it...mo one will hire you, eh? Read, Joe. I said the test is used after everything else...after the face-to-face....must be tedious for you having to stand in the unemployment line...no wonder you;ve become the yard sale tinkerman... |
O/T Personality Test
So...... after the Face to Face you use the test....then what do you use the results for? HR are reccomendors and gate keepers...nothing else. If I were to ever need to interview with a company..... I would not be interviewing with HR Katy. BTW job hunters don't schedule interviews, employers do. While it's the smart job candidate's challenge to take control of an interview, it's the employer who sets the tone. If that tone isn't one of clear mutual respect, all is lost. A respectful meeting with a job candidate should be a challenging but appropriate engagement of two professionals. If I interview I'm not there "at your pleasure." I've come to your office to conduct business and to derive some gain for myself. Your company should treat me as if he were a prospective customer coming to visit your facility. Don't be presumptuous. Don't ask me to open my kimono until you've opened yours. Don't poke and prod too soon. Imagine going on a first date and asking a person you barely know about the facts and figures of her life: "Who are your parents? How were you raised? Why is it you're attracted to me? How many kids do you want to have?" Don't laugh. The analogy is very apt. Nothing upsets me like a presumptuous interviewer, and rightly so. Cut to the chase. If you want to show a candidate true professional respect, don't interview him. Instead, have a working meeting. In what I call "the New Interview," the subject of your meeting isn't the candidate, your company or even the job. The subject is the work. That's the great equalizer. That's the subject that opens up all the other hidden doors to a candidate's personality, character and background. When you're sizing up someone you might want to marry, you don't ask them to tell you all about themselves, or even to demonstrate how wonderful they are. Instead, you spend time with them in real-life situations where you can do things together so you can see first-hand how they perform and how the two of you get along. The less contrived the situation, the more valid the data you'll get. The same goes for an interview. Why ask a candidate "interview questions" when the career counseling industry publishes crib sheets of the most clever, most "right" answers? Forget about quizzing the candidate. Work with him. Watch. Talk. Listen. This is where you learn whether he's "marrying material". Put the work first. Work with the candidate, right there in the interview, or you learn next to nothing about the candidate and he learns nothing about you. Don't waste everyone's time. Address the work first because it's the first deal-breaker. Deal with personality, philosophy and even credentials later. A job candidate is an invited guest to be shown hospitality and respect. IBM's old adage still holds in the business world, even if everyone has forgotten it: THINK. Recruiting and interviewing are not an administrative process. This is a highly social art: the art of tactful influence. You're guiding professionals into your fold. Do it gently. Do it responsibly. You must constantly keep your eyes on the state of the candidate. Is he warming up? Is he glowing? Is he confused? Is he smiling? Is he disgusted? What he thinks when he leaves the interview is your responsibility. And it could be your downfall. If I chose to interview I better have the companys respect. If I don't get it, I would walk. Joe katy wrote: Joe wrote: katy wrote: Joe wrote: katy wrote: jlrogers±³© wrote: http://similarminds.com/myers-briggs-jung.html INTJ ESTJ-Administrator I used the Jungian Personality test when I was still in HR for hiring executive staff... It's one of the best HR tools out there and is fairly accurate as long as the testee is honest and has some slef-perception...problems arise, though, when people have convinced themselves they are something they are not... As a caindate for any position you research company policy's, ethics, workstyle, culture, ect... before you go and get grilled by the HR wennie. That makes filling out any personality test a simple process that you taylor to fit the companies want's and desires to a T. They are useless unless your testing ditch diggers or bed pan washers, looking to screen out a physco. HR tool....Bwahahahahahahahahaha Joe Yes, some tests can be messed with, but most testing companies have built-ins (that's why the professional versions of that same test have over 200 questions...) The questions are posed over and over again in diferent frameworks...if you mess about too much, it triggers that there is something wrong and the score indicates that....it is a tool, not the end-all be-all for hiring...it is only used after a decision has been made to proceed and is not used AS the decision. So it's hocus pocus that has the ability to override a face to face decision? They are not good tools. Did you make canidates stick a finger in a bowl of water and look for ripples? HR needs no tools other than paper clips, and maybe rubber finger boots to protect from shuffeling paper, HR people are not decision makers at most companies. The only test that should be given are ones that relate to what value that canidate has to offer your company. Infact he should be working for you in an interview, making you money. If he can not do that...who want's him or her anyway? Joe I get it...mo one will hire you, eh? Read, Joe. I said the test is used after everything else...after the face-to-face....must be tedious for you having to stand in the unemployment line...no wonder you;ve become the yard sale tinkerman... |
O/T Personality Test
Joe wrote:
So...... after the Face to Face you use the test....then what do you use the results for? HR are reccomendors and gate keepers...nothing else. If I were to ever need to interview with a company..... I would not be interviewing with HR Katy. BTW job hunters don't schedule interviews, employers do. While it's the smart job candidate's challenge to take control of an interview, it's the employer who sets the tone. If that tone isn't one of clear mutual respect, all is lost. A respectful meeting with a job candidate should be a challenging but appropriate engagement of two professionals. If I interview I'm not there "at your pleasure." I've come to your office to conduct business and to derive some gain for myself. Your company should treat me as if he were a prospective customer coming to visit your facility. Don't be presumptuous. Don't ask me to open my kimono until you've opened yours. Don't poke and prod too soon. Imagine going on a first date and asking a person you barely know about the facts and figures of her life: "Who are your parents? How were you raised? Why is it you're attracted to me? How many kids do you want to have?" Don't laugh. The analogy is very apt. Nothing upsets me like a presumptuous interviewer, and rightly so. Cut to the chase. If you want to show a candidate true professional respect, don't interview him. Instead, have a working meeting. In what I call "the New Interview," the subject of your meeting isn't the candidate, your company or even the job. The subject is the work. That's the great equalizer. That's the subject that opens up all the other hidden doors to a candidate's personality, character and background. When you're sizing up someone you might want to marry, you don't ask them to tell you all about themselves, or even to demonstrate how wonderful they are. Instead, you spend time with them in real-life situations where you can do things together so you can see first-hand how they perform and how the two of you get along. The less contrived the situation, the more valid the data you'll get. The same goes for an interview. Why ask a candidate "interview questions" when the career counseling industry publishes crib sheets of the most clever, most "right" answers? Forget about quizzing the candidate. Work with him. Watch. Talk. Listen. This is where you learn whether he's "marrying material". Put the work first. Work with the candidate, right there in the interview, or you learn next to nothing about the candidate and he learns nothing about you. Don't waste everyone's time. Address the work first because it's the first deal-breaker. Deal with personality, philosophy and even credentials later. A job candidate is an invited guest to be shown hospitality and respect. IBM's old adage still holds in the business world, even if everyone has forgotten it: THINK. Recruiting and interviewing are not an administrative process. This is a highly social art: the art of tactful influence. You're guiding professionals into your fold. Do it gently. Do it responsibly. You must constantly keep your eyes on the state of the candidate. Is he warming up? Is he glowing? Is he confused? Is he smiling? Is he disgusted? What he thinks when he leaves the interview is your responsibility. And it could be your downfall. If I chose to interview I better have the companys respect. If I don't get it, I would walk. Joe katy wrote: Joe wrote: katy wrote: Joe wrote: katy wrote: jlrogers±³© wrote: http://similarminds.com/myers-briggs-jung.html INTJ ESTJ-Administrator I used the Jungian Personality test when I was still in HR for hiring executive staff... It's one of the best HR tools out there and is fairly accurate as long as the testee is honest and has some slef-perception...problems arise, though, when people have convinced themselves they are something they are not... As a caindate for any position you research company policy's, ethics, workstyle, culture, ect... before you go and get grilled by the HR wennie. That makes filling out any personality test a simple process that you taylor to fit the companies want's and desires to a T. They are useless unless your testing ditch diggers or bed pan washers, looking to screen out a physco. HR tool....Bwahahahahahahahahaha Joe Yes, some tests can be messed with, but most testing companies have built-ins (that's why the professional versions of that same test have over 200 questions...) The questions are posed over and over again in diferent frameworks...if you mess about too much, it triggers that there is something wrong and the score indicates that....it is a tool, not the end-all be-all for hiring...it is only used after a decision has been made to proceed and is not used AS the decision. So it's hocus pocus that has the ability to override a face to face decision? They are not good tools. Did you make canidates stick a finger in a bowl of water and look for ripples? HR needs no tools other than paper clips, and maybe rubber finger boots to protect from shuffeling paper, HR people are not decision makers at most companies. The only test that should be given are ones that relate to what value that canidate has to offer your company. Infact he should be working for you in an interview, making you money. If he can not do that...who want's him or her anyway? Joe I get it...mo one will hire you, eh? Read, Joe. I said the test is used after everything else...after the face-to-face....must be tedious for you having to stand in the unemployment line...no wonder you;ve become the yard sale tinkerman... So what magazine did you copy that from? Forbes? Money? Joe, you're the ultimate sham...and aside from Ms Terro, I doubt anyone else is interested in what resides behind your kimona.... |
O/T Personality Test
So what magazine did you copy that from? Forbes? Money? Joe, you're the ultimate sham...and aside from Ms Terro, I doubt anyone else is interested in what resides behind your kimona.... Kimino was a figure of speech, it about not asking stupid personal questions, like the one's on the "HR Tool". And what due tell is my sham here? , I'm just passing along good information you may use in the future, no need to get upset. You HR people sure do have thin skin. I did not copy it from any magizine Katy, I admit most is not original ideal's, most is taught by the leading recruiters in the USA...... but it seems that it is a totally New Age concepts to many HR hacks who pull out the lame-O- test. You never answered the question, I'm curious, what do you do with the results of the test? after the face to face interview. Joe |
O/T Personality Test
"Maxprop" wrote in message k.net... "Donal" wrote in message ... "Maxprop" wrote in message ink.net... Perhaps that's why Donal and I don't get along--we're too similar? What makes you think that we don't get along? I always thought that you were a fairly decent sort of chap. You may rest assured that I will not disagree with you unless you write something stupid. . . . meaning something you disagree with politically. Sure. meaning that I knew that you were too stupid to see that I was disagreeing with you. Regards Donal -- |
O/T Personality Test
Joe wrote:
So what magazine did you copy that from? Forbes? Money? Joe, you're the ultimate sham...and aside from Ms Terro, I doubt anyone else is interested in what resides behind your kimona.... Kimino was a figure of speech, it about not asking stupid personal questions, like the one's on the "HR Tool". And what due tell is my sham here? , I'm just passing along good information you may use in the future, no need to get upset. You HR people sure do have thin skin. I did not copy it from any magizine Katy, I admit most is not original ideal's, most is taught by the leading recruiters in the USA...... but it seems that it is a totally New Age concepts to many HR hacks who pull out the lame-O- test. You never answered the question, I'm curious, what do you do with the results of the test? after the face to face interview. Joe You use the results of the test to see where there may be interaction problems with other employees, clients, etc. and then when there is a problem, be able to address it constructively....but you knew that....they just couldn't do anything constructive to keep you. |
O/T Personality Test
Joe wrote:
katy wrote: Joe wrote: So what magazine did you copy that from? Forbes? Money? Joe, you're the ultimate sham...and aside from Ms Terro, I doubt anyone else is interested in what resides behind your kimona.... Kimino was a figure of speech, it about not asking stupid personal questions, like the one's on the "HR Tool". And what due tell is my sham here? , I'm just passing along good information you may use in the future, no need to get upset. You HR people sure do have thin skin. I did not copy it from any magizine Katy, I admit most is not original ideal's, most is taught by the leading recruiters in the USA...... but it seems that it is a totally New Age concepts to many HR hacks who pull out the lame-O- test. You never answered the question, I'm curious, what do you do with the results of the test? after the face to face interview. Joe You use the results of the test to see where there may be interaction problems with other employees, clients, etc. and then when there is a problem, be able to address it constructively....but you knew that....they just couldn't do anything constructive to keep you. Do your clients take the test? Or do you understand your clients better than your employees? Joe So obtuse, Joe. Go back to lying to Bobby... you're about as boring as he is.... |
O/T Personality Test
"Donal" wrote in message ... "Maxprop" wrote in message k.net... "Donal" wrote in message ... "Maxprop" wrote in message ink.net... Perhaps that's why Donal and I don't get along--we're too similar? What makes you think that we don't get along? I always thought that you were a fairly decent sort of chap. You may rest assured that I will not disagree with you unless you write something stupid. . . . meaning something you disagree with politically. Sure. meaning that I knew that you were too stupid to see that I was disagreeing with you. Roughly as stupid as you were for taking my comment about us being *too similar* literally. Apparently blatant irony is a difficult concept for you, eh? Max |
O/T Personality Test
"Maxprop" wrote in message ink.net... "Donal" wrote in message ... "Maxprop" wrote in message k.net... "Donal" wrote in message ... "Maxprop" wrote in message ink.net... Perhaps that's why Donal and I don't get along--we're too similar? What makes you think that we don't get along? I always thought that you were a fairly decent sort of chap. You may rest assured that I will not disagree with you unless you write something stupid. . . . meaning something you disagree with politically. Sure. meaning that I knew that you were too stupid to see that I was disagreeing with you. Roughly as stupid as you were for taking my comment about us being *too similar* literally. Apparently blatant irony is a difficult concept for you, eh? Yup!! You got it. I'm much more at ease with subtle irony. Regards Donal -- |
O/T Personality Test
"Donal" wrote in message ... "Maxprop" wrote in message ink.net... "Donal" wrote in message ... "Maxprop" wrote in message k.net... "Donal" wrote in message ... "Maxprop" wrote in message ink.net... Perhaps that's why Donal and I don't get along--we're too similar? What makes you think that we don't get along? I always thought that you were a fairly decent sort of chap. You may rest assured that I will not disagree with you unless you write something stupid. . . . meaning something you disagree with politically. Sure. meaning that I knew that you were too stupid to see that I was disagreeing with you. Roughly as stupid as you were for taking my comment about us being *too similar* literally. Apparently blatant irony is a difficult concept for you, eh? Yup!! You got it. I'm much more at ease with subtle irony. Why yes, you do seem to have a knack for it. (was that subtle enough for you?) Max |
O/T Personality Test
"Maxprop" wrote in message link.net... "Donal" wrote in message ... Yup!! You got it. I'm much more at ease with subtle irony. Why yes, you do seem to have a knack for it. (was that subtle enough for you?) That wasn't subtle at all! That was blatant sycophanchy!! I'd have preferred it if you hadn't learned your place so quickly. Regards Donal -- |
O/T Personality Test
"Donal" wrote in message ... "Maxprop" wrote in message link.net... "Donal" wrote in message ... Yup!! You got it. I'm much more at ease with subtle irony. Why yes, you do seem to have a knack for it. (was that subtle enough for you?) That wasn't subtle at all! That was blatant sycophanchy!! Hardly. It was irony: derisive. I'd have preferred it if you hadn't learned your place so quickly. I'd have preferred it if you had a clue. But reality seldom meets expectations. Max |
O/T Personality Test
Nauti Buoy wrote:
katy wrote in : Joe wrote: The only test that should be given are ones that relate to what value that canidate has to offer your company. Infact he should be working for you in an interview, making you money. If he can not do that...who want's him or her anyway? Joe I get it...mo one will hire you, eh? Read, Joe. I said the test is used after everything else...after the face-to-face....must be tedious for you having to stand in the unemployment line...no wonder you;ve become the yard sale tinkerman.., Time to take your hormones, ya old witch. Seems like a dried up old woman like you should not be giving any advice about anything except wrinkle cream. Neal by any other name... |
O/T Personality Test
"Maxprop" wrote in message link.net... "Donal" wrote in message ... "Maxprop" wrote in message link.net... "Donal" wrote in message ... Yup!! You got it. I'm much more at ease with subtle irony. Why yes, you do seem to have a knack for it. (was that subtle enough for you?) That wasn't subtle at all! That was blatant sycophanchy!! Hardly. It was irony: derisive. I took it as a compliment. You really don't know how to deliver an insult. I'd have preferred it if you hadn't learned your place so quickly. I'd have preferred it if you had a clue. But reality seldom meets expectations. You are absolutely correct. Your "expectations" led you to believe that you had insulted me. The reality is that you paid me a compliment. I like you. You're nice, but a little bit dim. Regards Donal -- |
O/T Personality Test
"Donal" wrote in message ... "Maxprop" wrote in message link.net... "Donal" wrote in message ... "Maxprop" wrote in message link.net... "Donal" wrote in message ... Yup!! You got it. I'm much more at ease with subtle irony. Why yes, you do seem to have a knack for it. (was that subtle enough for you?) That wasn't subtle at all! That was blatant sycophanchy!! Hardly. It was irony: derisive. I took it as a compliment. You really don't know how to deliver an insult. Rest assured I'm competent in that aspect, but I tend to believe insults are crude, self-debasing, and normally counter-productive. But hey, don't let me stop you, Donal. Knock yourself out. I'd have preferred it if you hadn't learned your place so quickly. I'd have preferred it if you had a clue. But reality seldom meets expectations. You are absolutely correct. . . . which you contradict immmediately with . . . Your "expectations" led you to believe that you had insulted me. The reality is that you paid me a compliment. I'm so very glad your reality allows you to believe so. I like you. You're nice, but a little bit dim. Let's see if I've got this right: you mistake my insult for a compliment, and that makes me dim. Got it. Max |
O/T Personality Test
"katy" wrote: Nauti Buoy wrote: Time to take your hormones, ya old witch. Seems like a dried up old woman like you should not be giving any advice about anything except wrinkle cream. Neal by any other name... is not necessarily Neal! Bwawhahahahahahahahaaaa! LP (laughing so hard my sides are splitting) |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:04 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com