>>9796Baffling non sequitur. Assuming it refers to my last post, I assure you that I haven't played a role in stopping the flow of conversation.Normally I'd argue against oversimplifying complex ideas to memes, but this post confuses me so much I can't think straight.
>>9798Which part of my question did you interpret as subjective?Specifically, and far more importantly, what's a booth-related pun. Clearly, someone in the room is referencing TS Eliot's poem in case I hadn't already assumed that someone had given themselves away. A sly remark about alcohol-related death via car accidents, presumably? Another implication that you're afraid I'm trying to drive you mad by asking seemingly unrelated questions? An accusation that I'm essentially a hollow shell masquerading as intelligent? Enlighten me!
>>9795Wow. Real witty response. No offense intended, of course! I honestly did not expect you to respond that way. Though I'm guessing you may have expected that kind of response from someone.Your post seems almost cryptic, so I guess my response will be also. To refer to your post title, though, it feels weird for you to say that's how "thrilling" is defined and then dismiss the relevance of my references.
>>9799Well jeez, now you're suddenly criticising everyone except yourself for supposedly knowing my motives better than me, and telling me how my thoughts work!I've expressed myself clearly enough, thank you. I asked questions based on my confusion re: your post. None of which have been answered. I asked what a booth-related pun was and didn't get an explanation. I pointed out that's strange and asked if you'd read TS Eliot's The Waste Land, and didn't get an answer. Why should I accept anything else but silence in
