It's a pretty commonly used format on many parts of the internet, I think most people would interpret it that way, especially when everybody reading will see that what is being quoted is obviously untrue.
Well I guess I'm being nuanced here, but I don't think in this specific case that works out that way, considering what it's replying to.
In other words I would agree with your interpretation if the reply was parodying something I said directly. Otherwise it just seems something of a non sequitur.
Anyway, I get what you're trying to communicate towards me, I even agree that sometimes it is using the way you describe. I would just think that's done the minority of the time, and the majority of the time quotes are used to actually quote someone.
I felt like "/s" gives the "joke" away so I opted not to have it and have people actually think critically, especially since the statement is false.
Do you think the joke matched the comment it was replying to, which was about calling your house representative?
It's what a wealthy conservative business owner might say upon reading the first sentence of your comment, I think it fits.
It’s what a wealthy conservative business owner might say upon reading the first sentence of your comment, I think it fits.
Fair enough, and that's the answer I was looking for.
The majority of the comment was about contacting your house representative, but you're right, it could match the first sentence, I guess.
I kind of wished they would have quoted that first sentence as part of their reply with the joke, to save me some time in replying.
It's a cynical statement, lighten up
lighten up
Not a matter of lightening up, its a matter of trying to understand, as it seems like such a non sequitur.
Is it really so hard to believe that somebody would want to know why somebody replied to them in such a perceived strange and unrelated sort of way?
I think if it was intended to quote someone they would put who they were quoting. Otherwise there's not really a point.
It's a pretty commonly used format on many parts of the internet, I think most people would interpret it that way, especially when everybody reading will see that what is being quoted is obviously untrue.
Well I guess I'm being nuanced here, but I don't think in this specific case that works out that way, considering what it's replying to.
In other words I would agree with your interpretation if the reply was parodying something I said directly. Otherwise it just seems something of a non sequitur.
Anyway, I get what you're trying to communicate towards me, I even agree that sometimes it is using the way you describe. I would just think that's done the minority of the time, and the majority of the time quotes are used to actually quote someone.
I felt like "/s" gives the "joke" away so I opted not to have it and have people actually think critically, especially since the statement is false.
Do you think the joke matched the comment it was replying to, which was about calling your house representative?
It's what a wealthy conservative business owner might say upon reading the first sentence of your comment, I think it fits.
Fair enough, and that's the answer I was looking for.
The majority of the comment was about contacting your house representative, but you're right, it could match the first sentence, I guess.
I kind of wished they would have quoted that first sentence as part of their reply with the joke, to save me some time in replying.
It's a cynical statement, lighten up
Not a matter of lightening up, its a matter of trying to understand, as it seems like such a non sequitur.
Is it really so hard to believe that somebody would want to know why somebody replied to them in such a perceived strange and unrelated sort of way?
I think if it was intended to quote someone they would put who they were quoting. Otherwise there's not really a point.