lol, anyways I reread and still do not see what I am missing. chk did not attack quaroath and quaroath seems to think that he was attacked. Help?crazy wrote:chkscum
Pre-edit: you are already voting me aaah, thanks for keeping up.
I'm taking "it strikes me" to mean that chk found it suspicious, which is silly, because Quar only really "elaborated" because you (Glass) pointed his choo-choo comment out to him.chkflip wrote:It could only kill the discussion if everyone has the same opinion I do... which I highly doubt. I felt the need to point it out because, to me, at that current moment, it's not worth much; NOW, however, it strikes me that Quar still felt the need to elaborate.
What heroism?wizrak wrote:I am Sry dat I Unvoted (wait, should I even be sorry?) but the reason why I unvoted is due to the fact that I could no longer get a reaction from chkflip due to Park's annoying heroism
How? I know exactly what chk said, i have to believe you misread what I said to say I was misrepresenting the Ouroboros of logic that made chk think it was interesting that I elaborated.Glass wrote: Worst misrep I have seen in a while, although it is possible you just misread what chk said.
line 1 Wagoning is pro townGlass wrote: wagoning = good for town
Albeit the way that wizrak is wagoning without any reasoning is counter-productive. I thought that this is what wizrak thought, but since his unvote for no apparent reason came up I am quite suspicious.
I want to address this portion of your post directly maybe it'll help with explaining why I feel I didn't misrepresent chkflp.Glass wrote:lol wall void of content = worthy of unvote? Noted.
Can you tell me anything you learned from Quaroath's post besides:
-he is busy on friday-saturday
-he agrees with crazy on essentially everything
quaroath wrote:Answering questions is scummy. Gotcha.
The only part you pull from that quote is “Answering questions is scummy, gotcha” Way to strip away the context of the quote.Quaroath wrote:This though is just ridiculous. You pointed out the glass/me interaction and that it might be off, (thereby implying a question), so I answered it (the implied question). Answering questions is scummy. Gotcha.chkflip wrote:It could only kill the discussion if everyone has the same opinion I do... which I highly doubt. I felt the need to point it out because, to me, at that current moment, it's not worth much; NOW, however, it strikes me that Quar still felt the need to elaborate.Crazy wrote:Saying something's dismissable doesn't do anything except kill a possible discussion point. Why'd you feel the need to point that out?chkflip wrote:Now, which comment is more odd - Quaroath's choo-choo comment without him actually being on the wagon or the fact that Glass felt it necessary to point out the obvious? Neither. They're both dismissable.
The fact that he thought out loud saying “it strikes me that quaroath had to elaborate” is like waving a flag saying “hey look, this might be scummy, but I’m not going to say it because I don’t want to take a stance.” I don’t feel that I misrepresented what he did at all. It wasn’t striking before I answered the question, but it was afterwards? Then why ask the question in the first place?Glass wrote:He said no such thing. He said:Quaroath wrote: At the end, I think I'll unvote: vote: chkflp for getting his knickers in a knot and portraying me answering two peoples implied questions and saying that its odd that I did so.Worst misrep I have seen in a while, although it is possible you just misread what chk said.chk wrote:I felt the need to point it out because, to me, at that current moment, it's not worth much; NOW, however, it strikes me that Quar still felt the need to elaborate.
Crazy wrote:I'm curious; why does thin-skinned = scum?
Crazy wrote:Okay... but why does wizrak having thin skin make you feel better about the wagon?
Incorrect. Note the "without any reasoning" portion in line 2. That is a very big difference.Quaroath wrote:line 1 Wagoning is pro townGlass wrote: wagoning = good for town
Albeit the way that wizrak is wagoning without any reasoning is counter-productive. I thought that this is what wizrak thought, but since his unvote for no apparent reason came up I am quite suspicious.
line 2 That wagon is anti town (which is how i interpret counter productive)
1. The question crazy asked was rhetorical.Quaroath wrote: The post wasn't empty of content, it was a direct answer to a question posed to me. The person that asked the question was satisfied with it. I'm pretty sure void of content =/= satisfactory answer.
Yes, because posting quotes in quotes in quotes extremely irritating to read and write and in this context is entirely unneeded since I took the part of the sequence out that I wanted to comment on. If people need clarification of what I am saying they can look back a couple of posts.quaroath wrote:The only part you pull from that quote is “Answering questions is scummy, gotcha” Way to strip away the context of the quote.
Sigh, I guess it is just a gross misinterpretation on one of our parts. To me "it strikes me that" = "It now comes to my attention that". But you and crazy seem to think that "It strikes me that" = "It strikes me as odd that". Would love for chk to comment on what he meant.Quaroath wrote:The fact that he thought out loud saying “it strikes me that quaroath had to elaborate” is like waving a flag saying “hey look, this might be scummy, but I’m not going to say it because I don’t want to take a stance.” I don’t feel that I misrepresented what he did at all. It wasn’t striking before I answered the question, but it was afterwards? Then why ask the question in the first place?
If you still feel I misrepresented what he said, I'm willing to agree to disagree, I just don't feel that I did.
It's clear from this context that Krazy was intending to use wizrak's "thin skin" as a reason to lynch him. The way Krazy started backpedaling on this when I questioned him about it reeks of Krazy-scum. See posts #111 and #114 where he insists that heKrazy wrote:Thin-skinned much?
Guys I'm really feeling this wizrak wagon.