Sorry to jerk yous out of witch history but, having slept on my thoughts, I wish to express them in answer to some posters who made direct comments to or about me. The order is not significant.
----
jane10
You said that you think there are times when I think people "shouldn't" take offence ("of people taking offence when she [thatbags] thinks they shouldn't"). If you think that I have not made my comments clear enough. I do not think people "shouldn't" take offence. If people want to take offence at anything at all that's entirely up to them and I don't care. What I'd prefer (no shoulds or shouldn'ts involved; when I say I believe in freedom and freedom of speech I mean it) is that they dealt with it themselves. I realise this will not be a very acceptable position to take in many people's eyes but it is what I think. I think there is far too much whingeing and whining about trivia and upset feelings in modern society, dangerously so in some places, such as at various US and UK universities that are curtailing people's rights of expression because what some people say "upsets" them. Such nonsense is even applied to, for instance, certain literature classes because there are "upsetting" events in the literature being studied. This is crazy and this tendency to give feelings too much (please note the words "too much"; I'm not saying feelings are never important) importance is, in its showing at universities, a sign of decadence in our society. Which is deeply troubling.
elegran
Nice to know that at least one person also thought the washerwoman quip was a joke. And especially nice to know that it was one of the gransnetters who actually knows me quite well and usually understands where I'm coming from.
Sorry if this will earn you more accusations of cliquishness but I expect you can brush those off with the scorn they deserve. I expect that because I can (brush them off as ridiculous tattle) and I know you fairly well too.
Oh how the clique-mongers will love that!
eloethan
I found your post very interesting, mainly because your assertion that I have a tendency "to come over all superior" is, generally speaking, exactly what I have often thought about the tone of your posts. I haven't said so until now because I thought it impolite to make such a personal remark, but since you think it's okay, I'll join in. I enjoy reading your posts and think you put a lot of thought into them. This is true even when I think their tone is superior and when I disagree with what you've said. Can we call it quits now and address the issues rather than each others' personality traits and Gransnet writing styles?
ankers
Thank you for the list. I will study it and take notes. Not.
You will probably love that I have a "mean" nickname from my teenage daughter and her friends at school. It is Shady. I had to look it up when she told me. Apparently it means this sort of stuff: questionable, vague, dim, shadowy, indistinct, dark, dusky, and shaded. These words make a connection to the slang definition that I use. For example; the word questionable means unclear and when a person is acting shady their real emotions are unclear.
I was given the name because when Minibags sends me an informational text, e.g. a time she'll be home or some such, I tend to send the simple reply of "K" which indicates I've got her message and that's fine (short for okay, you understand?). Apparently other people mums send screeds of chat in response to such messages. As I said to Minibags: "I'm not other people's mums". I also feel no need to be like other people for the sake of some ethereal idea of 'fitting in'.
I think the nickname is funny, as does Minibags. I like it, as does Minibags because it's so not me. It's a JOKE, a piss-take, a teenagers' construct for understanding someone else's mum. I'm pleased I've given them so much amusement that they've actually resorted to trying to 'get' me. Habitual offence-takers would probably find that their feelings were hurt by it. Shrug.