The Non-English example was refering to you stating something that only certain people would understand (mostly from US) on a blog where people from all over the world read and expecting everyone to know what you are talking about by comparing it to something else which is limited to mostly the US. My comment was initially in good fun but you replied rather aggresively to.

Because YOU don’t find something satirical/amusing does not mean it isnt.

And final point: I was not speaking on behalf of Nite. I was speaking on behalf of me and anyone else who was not familiar with neither Coco’s nor Denny’s.

But you knew that right?

Way to be a douche about a simple comment and then hanging on every single point I made.

Thats me done with this “issue”.

I too, do not know what Denny’s is as I do not live in any of the stated areas, so I can totally see where he is coming from.

I didn’t say that using the word “diddlytot” was serious; I said it wasn’t satirical.

A desire for conversation means that the writer actually chooses to contribute to said conversation. You had an opportunity to participate in a discussion on the subject and even to offer a greater elaboration on the topic, but instead you chose to concentrate your efforts on making a deprecatory comment.

This really has been most lovely, but I am moving on to debating subjects that are more relevant to larger social issues.

My original comment: Oh yes I was deadly serious about a diddlytot.

What I was merely pointing out in a satirish manner was that simply saying “Coco’s is like Denny’s only better” relied thoroughly on people reading the comment knowing what Denny’s is. After all I could of just googled Coco’s and wouldn’t of even needed that explanation! Its all in the desire for conversation (it is a blog afterall).

-disclaimer- any typo’s/spelling mistakes/grammatical errors are due to tiredness and not stupidity, honest.