psparky27 wrote:It 100% clear he means the post above
If that's the case, then you need to do what I did and demonstrate it with a concretely grounded textual argument instead of merely asserting it.
but you just dont like to admit you are wrong.
Dude ... ask Sir Tech. Ask Sir M. Ask Bubby, who I've gone round and round with over issues much more significant than this. I admit when I'm wrong constantly. And I'm wrong quite a lot.
The proof is as you stated. He quotes the "annoying exchange " and comments on it.
Yes. Which I had no part of. Earlier in the thread I wrote a fairly big post making one half of Wormsie's argument about the ridiculousness of judging originality through tiny contexts.
So why not put the "cvnt" afterwards? thus avoiding arrows ? You do know you can talk about two earlier posts in two different ways !
That's an extremely poor argument because it's speculative. The "you two" and the direct quote clearly defines the reference of the arrows. Besides which, the placement of the C-word is entirely irrelevant because it wouldn't change the reference. The arrows are quite trumped.
Trust me. He meant me and you
On the basis of what, exactly? Why should I invent a reason to be "mad" at Worms when one clearly doesn't exist because we're making the same point about judging an outchorus?
What's with all this "let's you and him fight?"
but I am happy to agree to disagree as I know worms and his want to be as offensive as clippa.
I don't think Worms would have been "offensive" even if he did direct that at me.
Difference is thats just who Clippa is
My goodness, now we're discussing the true essence of people we "know" on the internet?
C'mon, now ...