- Awards
- 21
On your list to remove as well?
Heaven forbid any passive-aggression replace overt physical violence.
Avoiding repeating the same phrase back-to-back
- Thread starter Snarky Oracle!
- Start date
- Copy link Copy link
On your list to remove as well?
Heaven forbid any passive-aggression replace overt physical violence.
- Awards
- 27
It's useless even when it's used properly.
If someone posts interesting news it can be "liked" or "thanked".
After that it's time to remove "cool" because...what does it even mean? Probably something like "your new dress looks...interesting".
And then it's time to bring back the big fat dislike and disagree smileys because then we all know where we stand.
- Awards
- 25
Not to mention the drama and arguments they can instigate, something that's kinda lacking around here these days.
- Awards
- 21
Why don't we just have one smiley? The one that says "You're 100 % right".
Nothing is more passive-aggressive than dismissing anything less than total approval as "passive aggressive."
- Awards
- 21
Someone moved to get rid of the big fat dislike and disagree smileys because, apparently, they weren't passive enough...
- Awards
- 27
It's not about the disagreement or disapproval, it's about how you communicate that. Like, maybe explaining in words why you disagree.
There's nothing I can do with a sarcastic optimistic/informative smiley. It's just a lazy way to have the last word and ridicule someone's post in the process.
- Awards
- 21
But someone got rid of those "disagree" smileys. It was too harsh.
And then someone complained that other smileys (optimistic) were too passive-aggressive --- and now 'informative' should be on the chopping block??
So now you and yours really do just want 100% approval so you can 'do something with it'...
- Awards
- 27
Well, I did say....
No need to read between the smiley - it will simply tell you who your enemies are.
- Awards
- 21
And did you and yours actually mean bringing back "disagree" was a good idea?
Or are you just pretending your argument is consistent?
Otherwise, 100% approval will be the only thing permitted -- and that seems 'lazy' to me.
- Awards
- 27
But everybody in that room knows that it isn't a hint, and by repeating the word she kinda dismisses his voice.
Although...
these are not precisely the same kind of "leave" verbs, and that makes Fallon's "leave" (marching orders) a reinterpretation of Andrew's "leave" (give us some privacy so we can finish this).
It's creating an awkward moment just for the heck of it even though she's not terribly serious about it.
- Awards
- 10
Very sure. I grant you that this is one of the better exchanges and it is helped by Thomson’s acting. However, the segue into the Kirby stuff is clunky not to mention the ‘stagey’ string of archly disdainful barbs that the writers loved but that were rarely very convincing.
- Awards
- 21
Here's another one (given the neurotic writer in my brain) ... Krystle says: "I didn't know I was giving a party..." when she finds Alexis pigging out in the mansion's kitchen, and then later observes that "...and now it's party time."
The first time she should have phrased it: "Am I holding a celebration?" instead.
The first time she should have phrased it: "Am I holding a celebration?" instead.
- Awards
- 21
Here's another one:
Alexis says: "...two of us in Hong Kong in the same shoppe..." and Krystle says: "I've been looking all over Hong Kong for you."
Which "Hong Kong" should be replaced and with what phrase?
Alexis says: "...two of us in Hong Kong in the same shoppe..." and Krystle says: "I've been looking all over Hong Kong for you."
Which "Hong Kong" should be replaced and with what phrase?
- Awards
- 21
In Season 3, Alexis keeps telling Adam that he missed Marvin Davis' "great party" last night. She says it, words it the same way, two or three times.
Whatever happened to "fabulous soiree" -- or even "damned-fine shindig"?
Whatever happened to "fabulous soiree" -- or even "damned-fine shindig"?
- Awards
- 1
In Season 5, episode 27 ("Kidnapped"), Blake and Krystle talk about Sammy Jo in the nursery:
Krystle: "Blake, I promised Daniel that if anything happened to him, I'd take care of Sammy Jo".
Blake: "If there was ever someone who could take care of herself, it's Sammy Jo."
It's as if the writers had only 20 words to choose from in each dialogue...
Krystle: "Blake, I promised Daniel that if anything happened to him, I'd take care of Sammy Jo".
Blake: "If there was ever someone who could take care of herself, it's Sammy Jo."
It's as if the writers had only 20 words to choose from in each dialogue...
- Awards
- 21
Mmmmmm.... I know this is all kind of subjective, but I'd argue that exchange is a little different; Blake is repeating Krystle's wording on purpose to make a snarky point.
- Awards
- 1
I thought about it too, but the way he says it doesn't it make it sound snarky. Can't find the snippet online, unfortunately (just rewatched it on DVD). Also, it's not so much about the "taking care" part but about the repeating of Sammy Jo's name. Would this be done in a normal conversation? (But then, again, it's Dynasty.).