Gaffer Tape said:

It's hard for me to discuss this with a serious face, but basically, I'm treating Gaffer just like any other (male) member, and yet with those you're not saying anything like "if you're gonna treat men like that in real life, you're not getting in their pants".

I would reluctantly say that he actually made a good, intelligent post here that I actually somewhat agree with, that doesn't make him sound holier-than-thou, and in which I can't find much in the way of faulty logic... but I made the mistake of saying that earlier today in regards to the Politics thread, and look where that got us.

I guess the moral is, is that even when you're agreeing with twooffour he can't allow to you win, so I guess he just has to point out how wrong you are for agreeing with him.

But if I'm wrong for agreeing with him, wouldn't it stand to follow that what I was agreeing with was wrong? Otherwise, why would he be against me agreeing with it? But if he was wrong, he wouldn't be right. But he's always right! But if I was agreeing with something that was wrong, and he has to be righter than everyone else, then he would be righter than everyone else, but then how could he be wro...

EXPLOSION!!!

Daisy, daisy, give me your answer doooooooooo...

Crap, I just had a twooffour paradox.

You just kinda fail at sarcasm.

You're easily forgetting that in that same post where you "approved" of my banal comment about homosexuality in Politics (about as banal as this one), you then went on to act like a disingenuous dick.

I might fish out the post for you if you've forgotten (it must be somewhere... in one of these two threads), but I'm sure you remember.

And THAT was the part I replied to in that adversary tone. NOT the agreeing part.

So your whole "sarcasm shatters the universe" chain from that moment on, crumbles under its own lameness.
The paradox to asplode the universe, was asploded.
It was the day when the paradox... became a ahh fuck it.