Search In The AnswerBank

it's BLATANTLY not PATENTLY grrrr

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?!?!?!!?!? blink_babe13 (Tue 21:32 19/Sep/06)

name of song EastEnders cast question

Report this question

Subscribe to question

Post an Answer

Answers 21 to 30 of 30

Previous 1 2

claireyfairy		(Wed 14:48 20/Sep/06) I really lost it once with someoneIi ended up shouting 'it's specific! Specific, specific specific, repeat it!!!'
robbo82		(Wed 17:40 20/Sep/06) The worst one I find is when people use 'learn' instead of 'teach' and 'borrow instead of 'lend' eg 'that'll learn you' and 'can you borrow me �10?'
kempie		(Wed 19:00 20/Sep/06) 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.
lady_p_gold		(Wed 20:04 20/Sep/06) Well congratulations to blink_babe for facing the music of her question ! Fink it was very brave loike.
goldenfield		(Wed 20:44 20/Sep/06) 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.
kempie		(Wed 21:29 20/Sep/06) 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".
goldenfield		(Wed 22:26 20/Sep/06) 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.
kempie		(Wed 22:37 20/Sep/06) (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.
PAPERCUT154		(Mon 00:36 05/Jan/09) "What we have here is a complete failure of communication" Sorry but that just put me in mind of Paul Newman in ''Cool Hand Luke' ?............ "I'm shakin' it Boss"
blink_babe13		(Mon 00:39 05/Jan/09) Question Author holy post resurrection batman o.o

Answers 21 to 30 of 30

Previous 1 2

Search In The AnswerBank