Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

460

Today, on a conference call, someone said, "it's always darkest before the dawn."

I couldn't help myself. I said, "No it isn't. It's darkest in the middle of the night, equidistant between sunset and sunrise." That got quite a few laughs.

Today, on a conference call, someone said, "it's always darkest before the dawn." I couldn't help myself. I said, "No it isn't. It's darkest in the middle of the night, equidistant between sunset and sunrise." That got quite a few laughs.

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (64).
[–] • 1 pt

Ok Jimmy. Time for your pills.

[–] • 0 pt

Ah, classic. Thanks for admitting defeat. Enjoy the rest of your night.

[–] • 1 pt

When someone starts getting insulting, the conversation is over. You started getting insulting and, did to boot, start doing the exact thing you accused me of. Being autistic about something.

I simply pointed out that the statement, as presented, is self cancelling. You're taking it places that I never even cared to go. You are right, I can't increase your IQ points, but you've certainly decreased mine.

[–] • 1 pt

You're right, I got annoyed. But that word was simply a placeholder over something like "arrogantly," which is a descriptor. Replace "autistically" with any other word, and there is still a valid point to be made in what I said. You just dropped a side of ad-hominem with no meat on the plate.

We're literally arguing two different things, which is why this conversation will never go anywhere. You're arguing about the semantics of grammatical structure: I'm saying that despite this, the statement still holds enough wisdom to not simply write-it-off altogether. Or am I misreading the situation?