2012 - a retrospective

[TheoK]

Sic! 

[Adam]

omg the Pandora shit again?

['Butterflies']

omg the Pandora shit again?

Looks like it Les seems to enjoy raking up the bitter past.

[odeon]

You can read. You just don't understand. That's worse, IMHO.

Oh well.

You dont have the right to decide what one of Bods points I should comment on. That is very arrogant

You are absolutely right, I don't have that right. Is that what you think this is about, dear?

 

When the argument fails, revert to patronizing the woman. You fat sexist pig

I thought you'd bite. 

['andersom']

I'd love another cat, but, that's not wise. I don't want a puppy, can I have some quality catfood instead?

['andersom']

Prins vital care for adult cats please. 

['Butterflies']

You can read. You just don't understand. That's worse, IMHO.

Oh well.

You dont have the right to decide what one of Bods points I should comment on. That is very arrogant

You are absolutely right, I don't have that right. Is that what you think this is about, dear?

 

When the argument fails, revert to patronizing the woman. You fat sexist pig

I thought you'd bite. 

Yeah right Jabba, dont pretend you were just fishing   

I think that using yours and Les' logic, this proves without doubt that you are a male chauvinist pig

[Pyraxis]

I'd love another cat, but, that's not wise. I don't want a puppy, can I have some quality catfood instead?

 

Or one of these?

[TheoK]

Squali fortes sunt 

[Al Swearegen]

Yes Butterflies. I mentioned pandpora 53 minutes. Before. I used your mock concern/digust or whatever against me mentioning your efforts i bring up personal and private matters of odeon as to be simiar to your doing a callout against me for defending pandora (something like "you are doing her harm and are a bad friend for defending her and therefore highlighting what i said to her).

So YES I used her as an example to highlight a quirk in your argument style and then 53 minutes later or whatever CBC bought her up,

Once CBC bought her up, she stated she was confused as to what was going on and why you were amuseed at the reference to Pandora. (Some one that I HAD referenced 53 minutes before in case you believe I am trying to distance myself from this). I know that CBC knows Pandora from AFF. I knew what her names are over there. We are both from AFF and I was probably in the best position, ironically (given my lack of brevity), to succinctly get her up to speed. I did this, rather than leave her in the dark.

Now did I cause CBC to make the faux pas over Pandora? Did I quickly bring CBC up to speed? Did CBC know what was going on? Was she in need of some one to explain? As i knew how CBC would know Pandora, and where she could read at her leisure the association here that i referenced by links, was I well placed to let her know? Does any of these questions have anything to do whether I mentioned Pandora before?

OR

was I just desperate to mention Pandora?

Go for honesty and credible here Butterflies.

To paraphrase Odeon. Good rewrite Les

A re-write? OK. A rewrite would reason that I am changing the history and facts to misrepresent the situation

So let's not assert but instead ask.

1) Did CBC mention Pandora independently of me?
2) Was she aware of the fact that i had mentioned Pandora 53 minutes before hand?
3) Were both of our references linked?
4) Did the responses she got back make sense to her?
5) Did she post that she had no idea why this was this was funny?
6) Did i put her up to this?
7) Was Pandora known under another alias or two that CBC would know?
Was there anyone else online who knew her of old and knew both the aliases and where and how CBC would know her?
9) Did i do more in explaining to CBC in my post to her than mentioning her AFF name and linking the relevance to why people here knew who she was?

OK a big one....how is this a rewrite?

Holding rigidly onto your facepalm-worthy, failing position is rather embarassing. It was on a callout you made on me, it was when Ricky placed himself on ignore and....I see it slowly gettin there now. Keep going Butterflies I want to see where this ends up.

Cool rewrite Bro

Ah OK. Why didn't you just say that you did not know what rewrite meant.? See I am not THAT mean. If you are ignorant or stupid, just admit it. I will be sensitive to this lacking.
It may Explain all the misrepresentations and deviations from logic and truth .
So now, are you wilfully ignorant/stupid or is this not a bad act ?

['Butterflies']

Yes Butterflies. I mentioned pandpora 53 minutes. Before. I used your mock concern/digust or whatever against me mentioning your efforts i bring up personal and private matters of odeon as to be simiar to your doing a callout against me for defending pandora (something like "you are doing her harm and are a bad friend for defending her and therefore highlighting what i said to her).

So YES I used her as an example to highlight a quirk in your argument style and then 53 minutes later or whatever CBC bought her up,

Once CBC bought her up, she stated she was confused as to what was going on and why you were amuseed at the reference to Pandora. (Some one that I HAD referenced 53 minutes before in case you believe I am trying to distance myself from this). I know that CBC knows Pandora from AFF. I knew what her names are over there. We are both from AFF and I was probably in the best position, ironically (given my lack of brevity), to succinctly get her up to speed. I did this, rather than leave her in the dark.

Now did I cause CBC to make the faux pas over Pandora? Did I quickly bring CBC up to speed? Did CBC know what was going on? Was she in need of some one to explain? As i knew how CBC would know Pandora, and where she could read at her leisure the association here that i referenced by links, was I well placed to let her know? Does any of these questions have anything to do whether I mentioned Pandora before?

OR

was I just desperate to mention Pandora?

Go for honesty and credible here Butterflies.

To paraphrase Odeon. Good rewrite Les

A re-write? OK. A rewrite would reason that I am changing the history and facts to misrepresent the situation

So let's not assert but instead ask.

1) Did CBC mention Pandora independently of me?
2) Was she aware of the fact that i had mentioned Pandora 53 minutes before hand?
3) Were both of our references linked?
4) Did the responses she got back make sense to her?
5) Did she post that she had no idea why this was this was funny?
6) Did i put her up to this?
7) Was Pandora known under another alias or two that CBC would know?
Was there anyone else online who knew her of old and knew both the aliases and where and how CBC would know her?
9) Did i do more in explaining to CBC in my post to her than mentioning her AFF name and linking the relevance to why people here knew who she was?

OK a big one....how is this a rewrite?

Holding rigidly onto your facepalm-worthy, failing position is rather embarassing. It was on a callout you made on me, it was when Ricky placed himself on ignore and....I see it slowly gettin there now. Keep going Butterflies I want to see where this ends up.

Cool rewrite Bro

Ah OK. Why didn't you just say that you did not know what rewrite meant.? See I am not THAT mean. If you are ignorant or stupid, just admit it. I will be sensitive to this lacking.
It may Explain all the misrepresentations and deviations from logic and truth .
So now, are you wilfully ignorant/stupid or is this not a bad act ?

I cant be bothered trying to read your essay.

I think what this situation calls for, is for you to rewrite that essay explaining why your previous essay wasnt a rewrite.

Hopefully your next essay should clear up any confusion

[Al Swearegen]

Yes Butterflies. I mentioned pandpora 53 minutes. Before. I used your mock concern/digust or whatever against me mentioning your efforts i bring up personal and private matters of odeon as to be simiar to your doing a callout against me for defending pandora (something like "you are doing her harm and are a bad friend for defending her and therefore highlighting what i said to her).

So YES I used her as an example to highlight a quirk in your argument style and then 53 minutes later or whatever CBC bought her up,

Once CBC bought her up, she stated she was confused as to what was going on and why you were amuseed at the reference to Pandora. (Some one that I HAD referenced 53 minutes before in case you believe I am trying to distance myself from this). I know that CBC knows Pandora from AFF. I knew what her names are over there. We are both from AFF and I was probably in the best position, ironically (given my lack of brevity), to succinctly get her up to speed. I did this, rather than leave her in the dark.

Now did I cause CBC to make the faux pas over Pandora? Did I quickly bring CBC up to speed? Did CBC know what was going on? Was she in need of some one to explain? As i knew how CBC would know Pandora, and where she could read at her leisure the association here that i referenced by links, was I well placed to let her know? Does any of these questions have anything to do whether I mentioned Pandora before?

OR

was I just desperate to mention Pandora?

Go for honesty and credible here Butterflies.

To paraphrase Odeon. Good rewrite Les

A re-write? OK. A rewrite would reason that I am changing the history and facts to misrepresent the situation

So let's not assert but instead ask.

1) Did CBC mention Pandora independently of me?
2) Was she aware of the fact that i had mentioned Pandora 53 minutes before hand?
3) Were both of our references linked?
4) Did the responses she got back make sense to her?
5) Did she post that she had no idea why this was this was funny?
6) Did i put her up to this?
7) Was Pandora known under another alias or two that CBC would know?
Was there anyone else online who knew her of old and knew both the aliases and where and how CBC would know her?
9) Did i do more in explaining to CBC in my post to her than mentioning her AFF name and linking the relevance to why people here knew who she was?

OK a big one....how is this a rewrite?

Holding rigidly onto your facepalm-worthy, failing position is rather embarassing. It was on a callout you made on me, it was when Ricky placed himself on ignore and....I see it slowly gettin there now. Keep going Butterflies I want to see where this ends up.

Cool rewrite Bro

Ah OK. Why didn't you just say that you did not know what rewrite meant.? See I am not THAT mean. If you are ignorant or stupid, just admit it. I will be sensitive to this lacking.
It may Explain all the misrepresentations and deviations from logic and truth .
So now, are you wilfully ignorant/stupid or is this not a bad act ?

I cant be bothered trying to read your essay.

I think what this situation calls for, is for you to rewrite that essay explaining why your previous essay wasnt a rewrite.

Hopefully your next essay should clear up any confusion

No Butterflies, either you are playing stupid ....or its not an act.

I am just curious as to which it is.

['Butterflies']

@Les. Im trying to see your point, but it would help if you could go into greater detail. It feels like youre being deliberately vague.

Just give me a nice little essay, preferably with a 10 minute powerpoint presentation, uploaded onto Youtube.

[Al Swearegen]

@Les. Im trying to see your point, but it would help if you could go into greater detail. It feels like youre being deliberately vague.

Just give me a nice little essay, preferably with a 10 minute powerpoint presentation, uploaded onto Youtube.

But Butterflies if you do not understand what has been said, then surely all that you suggest will be a waste of everyone's time. It would be cruel too. If as i say you are really having difficulties with these concepts, then it would be cruel in the same way that giving a book of advanced astrophysics to a year 5 and telling them to study up as they will be tested on it shortly.
I simply assumed you were more intelligent and rational than you were letting on, and your ignorance and stupidity, and inability to represent any point in this discussion rationally and logically, was due to you playing the idiot.
I am big enough to recognise a fault. You are not playing the idiot because it is not an act.

['Butterflies']

@Les. Im trying to see your point, but it would help if you could go into greater detail. It feels like youre being deliberately vague.

Just give me a nice little essay, preferably with a 10 minute powerpoint presentation, uploaded onto Youtube.

But Butterflies if you do not understand what has been said, then surely all that you suggest will be a waste of everyone's time. It would be cruel too. If as i say you are really having difficulties with these concepts, then it would be cruel in the same way that giving a book of advanced astrophysics to a year 5 and telling them to study up as they will be tested on it shortly.
I simply assumed you were more intelligent and rational than you were letting on, and your ignorance and stupidity, and inability to represent any point in this discussion rationally and logically, was due to you playing the idiot.
I am big enough to recognise a fault. You are not playing the idiot because it is not an act.

I love the way you subtly compare your essays with advanced astrophysics 
Its comments like that which ensure that this tete-a-tete will never go stale



Now, c'mon Les. You know you want to, so get typing. I want to see a 500 word essay on how you werent comparing your essays to astrophysics, or whatever random shite you tend to fill your essays with