In post 440, Lalendra wrote:
I mean generally, if the post is completely lacking in any sort of segue? YES. I don't buy your "It's so silly to assume that I meant JUST her" logic, this (and several subsequent posts) sounds like some serious backpedaling to me.
That is your problem. That was the truth. I meant her, and others. And actually I have never done anything that would prove the opposite. It is only you trying to make me look like a scum.
Mmmm...kay.
In post 373, Count Dooku wrote:I want to stop this pointless discussion. I don't have anything more to say about it. Vote me, lynch me, stop it.
This, to me, clearly says he's giving up on arguing his point and is just going for the righteous-indignation stance instead of articulating his reasoning.
I have answered those silly questions sveral times, but they kept askig and asking them. It is pointless to spam pages with the same questions and answeres. But, it looks like you like to talk about the same topic again and agin and again, so if you want, I will answer all your questions about that topic. Ask them. If you want to spend more hours with that pointless discussion, then go ahead, and ask me.
This is actually the first I've said about it, but thank you for the blanket generalization.
Whether it meant something to her or not is largely irrelevant, it's more about whether he INTENDED it to mean something to her.
Yes, I intended to refer to Rach. But (I hate that I have to say the same things again and again, because you are asking the same bad and pointless questions again and again) not only to her, to others too, for example deathfisaro or croboss. And I told you it several times, but it looks like there is a problem with your grasp.
Again, this is the first time I've pointed it out - the problem is less with our grasp of your reasoning, and more with your inability to a) grasp our reasoning or b) defend your views with reason and logic, rather than just getting super-huffy and insulting.
Again...seemingly out of arguments.
My respond to House's post was explained just like the post and the scumread was explained itself.
I'm actually not sure what this means so I'm going to leave it alone, I will be happy to address it if you want to clarify.
And again.
Thank you for showing us that you didn't even read the thread. Had you read post
439, you would have known that I was going to explain it today.
Oh I read it, but I didn't agree that it was shitposting, and I'm not a huge fan of "I don't like this and neither should you but I'm not going to explain why until later" posts.
VOTE: Count Dooku Nice scummy jump on the most recent wagon without stating anything real/genuine/original.
Pretty sure I laid out my reasoning above, but it seems that there is a problem with your grasp.