Author Topic: 2012 - a retrospective  (Read 20897 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

TheoK

  • Guest
Re: 2012 - a retrospective
« Reply #495 on: November 17, 2012, 02:11:13 PM »
Sic!  :viking:

Offline Adam

  • Elder
  • Almighty Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 24530
  • Karma: 1260
  • Gender: Male
Re: 2012 - a retrospective
« Reply #496 on: November 17, 2012, 02:54:45 PM »
omg the Pandora shit again? :laugh:

Offline 'Butterflies'

  • Mastermind of the Aspie Elite
  • Elder
  • Obsessive Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 7500
  • Karma: 625
  • Gender: Female
Re: 2012 - a retrospective
« Reply #497 on: November 17, 2012, 03:42:17 PM »
omg the Pandora shit again? :laugh:

Looks like it :facepalm2: Les seems to enjoy raking up the bitter past.

Offline odeon

  • Witchlet of the Aspie Elite
  • Webmaster
  • Postwhore Beyond Repair
  • *****
  • Posts: 108783
  • Karma: 4477
  • Gender: Male
  • Replacement Despot
Re: 2012 - a retrospective
« Reply #498 on: November 17, 2012, 04:56:26 PM »
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 :thumbdn:

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


 :hahaha: :hahaha: :hahaha:

When the argument fails, revert to patronizing the woman. You fat sexist pig :facepalm2:

I thought you'd bite.  :hahaha:
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."

- Albert Einstein

Offline 'andersom'

  • Pure Chocolate Bovine PIMP of the Aspie Elite
  • Elder
  • Almighty Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 39199
  • Karma: 2556
  • Gender: Female
  • well known as hyke.
Re: 2012 - a retrospective
« Reply #499 on: November 17, 2012, 04:57:48 PM »
I'd love another cat, but, that's not wise. I don't want a puppy, can I have some quality catfood instead?
I can do upside down chocolate moo things!

Offline 'andersom'

  • Pure Chocolate Bovine PIMP of the Aspie Elite
  • Elder
  • Almighty Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 39199
  • Karma: 2556
  • Gender: Female
  • well known as hyke.
Re: 2012 - a retrospective
« Reply #500 on: November 17, 2012, 04:59:21 PM »
Prins vital care for adult cats please.  :tard:
I can do upside down chocolate moo things!

Offline 'Butterflies'

  • Mastermind of the Aspie Elite
  • Elder
  • Obsessive Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 7500
  • Karma: 625
  • Gender: Female
Re: 2012 - a retrospective
« Reply #501 on: November 17, 2012, 06:39:14 PM »
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 :thumbdn:

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


 :hahaha: :hahaha: :hahaha:

When the argument fails, revert to patronizing the woman. You fat sexist pig :facepalm2:

I thought you'd bite.  :hahaha:

Yeah right Jabba, dont pretend you were just fishing   :thumbdn:

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

Offline Pyraxis

  • Werewolf Wrangler of the Aspie Elite
  • Caretaker Admin
  • Almighty Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 16663
  • Karma: 1430
  • aka Daria
Re: 2012 - a retrospective
« Reply #502 on: November 17, 2012, 06:40:54 PM »
I'd love another cat, but, that's not wise. I don't want a puppy, can I have some quality catfood instead?

 :CanofWorms: :CanofWorms: :CanofWorms:

Or one of these? :shark:
You'll never self-actualize the subconscious canopy of stardust with that attitude.

TheoK

  • Guest
Re: 2012 - a retrospective
« Reply #503 on: November 17, 2012, 06:42:18 PM »
Squali fortes sunt  :viking:

Offline Al Swearegen

  • Pussycat of the Aspie Elite
  • Elder
  • Almighty Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 18721
  • Karma: 2240
  • Always front on and in your face
Re: 2012 - a retrospective
« Reply #504 on: November 17, 2012, 07:10:38 PM »
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 :2thumbsup:

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?
8) 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 :2thumbsup:

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 ?
I2 today is not i2 of yesteryear. It is a knitting circle. Those that participate be they nice or asshats know their place and the price to be there. Odeon is the overlord

.Benevolent if you toe the line.

Think it is I2 of old? Even Odeon is not so delusional as to think otherwise. He may on occasionally pretend otherwise but his base is that knitting circle.

Censoring/banning/restricting/moderating myself, Calanadale & Scrapheap were all not his finest moments.

How to apologise to Scrap

Offline 'Butterflies'

  • Mastermind of the Aspie Elite
  • Elder
  • Obsessive Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 7500
  • Karma: 625
  • Gender: Female
Re: 2012 - a retrospective
« Reply #505 on: November 17, 2012, 07:20:52 PM »
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 :2thumbsup:

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?
8) 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 :2thumbsup:

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 :2thumbsup:

Offline Al Swearegen

  • Pussycat of the Aspie Elite
  • Elder
  • Almighty Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 18721
  • Karma: 2240
  • Always front on and in your face
Re: 2012 - a retrospective
« Reply #506 on: November 17, 2012, 08:11:11 PM »
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 :2thumbsup:

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?
8) 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 :2thumbsup:

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 :2thumbsup:

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

I am just curious as to which it is.
I2 today is not i2 of yesteryear. It is a knitting circle. Those that participate be they nice or asshats know their place and the price to be there. Odeon is the overlord

.Benevolent if you toe the line.

Think it is I2 of old? Even Odeon is not so delusional as to think otherwise. He may on occasionally pretend otherwise but his base is that knitting circle.

Censoring/banning/restricting/moderating myself, Calanadale & Scrapheap were all not his finest moments.

How to apologise to Scrap

Offline 'Butterflies'

  • Mastermind of the Aspie Elite
  • Elder
  • Obsessive Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 7500
  • Karma: 625
  • Gender: Female
Re: 2012 - a retrospective
« Reply #507 on: November 17, 2012, 08:42:41 PM »
@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.

Offline Al Swearegen

  • Pussycat of the Aspie Elite
  • Elder
  • Almighty Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 18721
  • Karma: 2240
  • Always front on and in your face
Re: 2012 - a retrospective
« Reply #508 on: November 17, 2012, 09:17:07 PM »
@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.
I2 today is not i2 of yesteryear. It is a knitting circle. Those that participate be they nice or asshats know their place and the price to be there. Odeon is the overlord

.Benevolent if you toe the line.

Think it is I2 of old? Even Odeon is not so delusional as to think otherwise. He may on occasionally pretend otherwise but his base is that knitting circle.

Censoring/banning/restricting/moderating myself, Calanadale & Scrapheap were all not his finest moments.

How to apologise to Scrap

Offline 'Butterflies'

  • Mastermind of the Aspie Elite
  • Elder
  • Obsessive Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 7500
  • Karma: 625
  • Gender: Female
Re: 2012 - a retrospective
« Reply #509 on: November 17, 2012, 09:46:10 PM »
@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  :nerdy: :probe:
Its comments like that which ensure that this tete-a-tete will never go stale :thumbup:



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 :squiddy: