Is Part 4 of anything ever good?? — Page 11

Because he's smarter than us, duh!

My cat also votes for twooffour.

Gaffer Tape said:

Hey, what happened to your sig, Zig?

What the hell? How did that happen?

Gaffer Tape said:

twooffour said:

You just kinda fail at sarcasm.

 Really?  Can you back that up?  Because I don't see you backing that up.  I just see you sorta dancing around it and avoiding it.

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.

Um, nope, you must not have read my post right, nor not read all of it, or thought about not reading it.  I guess I should dismiss the rest of your post because what I was saying should be obvious to anyone who read it.  Because the only other contribution I made in that post was voting in TV Frink's poll.  Maybe the fact that I voted for you was enough to get you riled up, but I would hardly call that being a "disingenuous dick."  But what do I know?  My opinions are just opinions after all.  Your opinions are facts... somehow.  I still haven't figured out how that is, though.  Perhaps you could spend about three yards' worth of text on a rambling post that goes nowhere, mentions "irony" about five times, "holding water" about three, and making claims of "backing stuff up" about nine times, with about half a dozen quote boxes in it to explain it to me again? ^_^

Why you fail at sarcasm? Because you act as if simply repeating back lines at me were somehow good biting sarcasm, while actually coming off as more stupid as you want to portray me.

Where I'm backing it up? Maybe right in the next paragraph, which you're... quoting and replying to in your next paragraph?
Gee, you're a funny one!

Yea, you "voted against me", let's look at that. (And we already have.)
So you ask me why I should think that if everyone thinks I'm an ass (and they're okay), could I consider that maybe I'm the problem?

Well, I'm posting a lengthy response to that.
Your reaction? Dismissing it entirely, still insisting that I WAS the problem, and "deserving" of the criticism.
Almost as if you already had made up your mind before asking, and whatever I'd have babbled together, it wouldn't have ever mattered.

Now, I might've justified conclusively and beyond all doubt (hey, I said might) why I thought otherwise.
And whether I was right about it or not, you hadn't even begun to address any of that, and from the looks, you might as well have been cluelessly insisting on your (now rebuked) version, which you wouldn't know as you hadn't read it, eh?
Which pretty much made me right at the time being (and still continues to this moment, as you haven't caught up yet).

But forget all that - I just got "riled up" because "you voted against me".
It wasn't a dick move on your part in any way, and you also didn't come off as stupid in any form or shape.
I should've just swallowed your vote, and been nice as you'd helped me out so much with that important Politics contribution!



Here's the thing, dear - if you weren't being such a disingenuous dick RIGHT NOW, I wouldn't have been forced to retell this boring story for the x-th time.

You had that reaction, coming, and it's pretty pathetic of you to try and pretend otherwise.
And with that said, you failed at the sarcasm :D

Your opinions are facts... somehow.  I still haven't figured out how that is, though.

Perhaps you could spend about three yards' worth of text on a rambling post that goes nowhere

Ziggy Stardust said:

He doesn't get it. We should just give up.

Not even joking here, but maybe he has some type of learning disability...

Heh, you don't even know what I "don't get". What exactly is this that I "don't get"?

Oh and yea, you're the guy who just posts random empty insults. "Shut up" is a valid example! Keep telling about "learning disabilities", you clown.

Gaffer Tape said:

RE:  Ziggy

Oh, please.  He's only admitted about two dozen times that he's doing this for kicks.  He knows it.  You know it.  We all know it.  I know we're not supposed to feed the troll, but this one is just so entertaining!

EDIT:  Crap.  I forgot to "back that up".  Oh, well, I suppose one direct quote will have to do for now.

I just like being blunter and snarkier than I have to, SOMETIMES, and I like offending people over NOTHING (go struggle with the wonderful irony of THAT).

So who's doin' it for kicks now?

The thing is, I wasn't the one to attack myself in in the first page of this thread, and I wasn't the one to bring up this whole "opinion vs. fact" thing.

CP originally derailed this thread, RedFive the other. I'm basically just defending myself (not that it wasn't fun like a trainwreck).
So who's REALLY doing it for... da kicks?

I also don't just pop in and attack random people I haven't spoken with priorly. Every little "conflict" that's been going on here, wasn't started by myself. Go figure that one out.

"and I like offending people over NOTHING"
Which means, I post something non-offensive, that still offends people due to sensitivity crybaby butthurt syndrome.
If they don't get offended, so much the better.

So that has to do with me doing "it" for the kicks, what exactly?
Defending myself against your laughable accusations about "opinions"?
Having originally posted a few harmless remarks that got you and a few others so "riled up"?

Lol. That's all I can say.

twooffour said:
Oh and yea, you're the guy who just posts random empty insults. "Shut up" is a valid example! Keep telling about "learning disabilities", you clown.

"Shut Up" isn't that random. It's a reaction to something you said. Let it go.

Gaffer Tape said:

Oh, I'm so sorry.  It's just that when you said I'd hit the nail on the head when I said that you would invalidate every contribution if Frink hadn't read a post of yours, I assumed that must be what you meant.  It's hard to keep up when you keep changing the rules, though.  I guess you just didn't read my post closely enough, or you would have caught that.  And if you can't keep up with an ongoing conversation, you really shouldn't be participating in it.  Or is that still the rule?  Have you changed that one yet? 

"Oh yea, and congrats on thinking I took your "Saturday Evening Post" "gag" at face value."

Sorry, I didn't just mean the Saturday Evening Post part, I meant the entire "hyperbolic sarcasm part", including whatever about the rest of Frink's life, or whatever.

Guess I should've clarified, seeing as how everything has to be spoonfed to you.
I thought you'd understand that I'm, like, referring to the "serious core" of your inept attempt at hyperbolic parody.

You might've caught up on that when I said:

"I laughed when reading this, but on a serious note (only because you're seemingly not getting it):

Yea, that's it in a nutshell, basically."

Well, apparently you didn't.
I have a new rule, though - from this moment on, I'm going to treat you like a toddler with Asperger's. I must say, I've never met a women in real life that behaved on par with a toddler with Asperger's. But I'm gonna take this into account now.

Bingowings said:

Alien Resurrection was a let down but it does have some good scenes, a couple of good performances, some great production values and a rather nice soundtrack.

Whedon says they filmed his script but got every aspect of it wrong (as in not as he imagined and described it).

Ziggy Stardust said:

twooffour said:

Sigh, another sarcasm fail post.

If you suck so much at sarcasm, quit doing it!

Troll.

twooffour said:

Ziggy Stardust said:

twooffour said:

Sigh, another sarcasm fail post.

If you suck so much at sarcasm, quit doing it!

Troll.

Gaffer Tape said:

Sorry, that just looked like dancing around and avoiding to me.  See, if you can use that as an excuse to dismiss everything that we say, why can't I?

Well, and why has it looked this way to you?
Because you couldn't connect two subsequent paragraphs together, that's why.

Now when you've shown me an EXAMPLE where I'm accusing you of avoiding / not backing shit up, with the rebuttal shining into my face RIGHT NEXT TO IT, or heck, ANYWHERE in any post you've directed at me in the last weekend - we can talk about something you "can do" that I "also can".

Hell... just any instance where I was wrong about any accusations directed at you. PLEASE.

Ziggy Stardust said:

Because he's smarter than us, duh!

Tehehehehe!

Yea, like I don't miss something that's right in the next par- ahh, fuck that.

Ziggy Stardust said:

twooffour said:
Oh and yea, you're the guy who just posts random empty insults. "Shut up" is a valid example! Keep telling about "learning disabilities", you clown.

"Shut Up" isn't that random. It's a reaction to something you said. Let it go.

 

Yea, a random reaction to something I said that didn't warrant for such a reaction.
It's also a nothingsaying reaction.

It's also a flame.
So if you enjoy trolling and acting like a huge dick (and if I'm saying that, it means something) to... I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say or achieve here, but basically, enjoy yourself.

I doubt I'm replying to any more of your parrot droppings.

TK-949 said:

 

Bingowings said:

Alien Resurrection was a let down but it does have some good scenes, a couple of good performances, some great production values and a rather nice soundtrack.

Whedon says they filmed his script but got every aspect of it wrong (as in not as he imagined and described it).

Last year I read the novel based on Whedon's screenplay. All scenes and dialogue are the same as in the movie, but it has a totally different tone. It could have been a really good movie if Whedon directed it. Same with his first Buffy screenplay.


I liked Indy 4 except the ending. The flying saucer was way too much.
And Pirates of the Caribbean 4 was really good. Better than parts 2 and 3.

Oh, and BSG Season 4: BEST. SCIFI. ON. TV. EVER.

 

I disagree. It's a very good season, but I think Lost Season 5 is the best sci-fi on TV ever.

twooffour said:
I doubt I'm replying to any more of your parrot droppings.

I won't if you won't!

l certainly was hoping for a chuckle or two, but it just wasn't really good. Kinda pointless.

That was meant to be funny??? It looks like we'll need a humour archaeologist to find the funny in that statement.

Humor = it wasn't meant seriously. If you need an archaeologist to figure out that [[i.e., that it was INTENDED as a joke, not seriously]], you might as well try to use an X-Ray to find your brain.

I don't get this thread.

Neither do I.

Aw aw, an 'oop!

Well, then, how about the abridged version.


______________________________

_______________________________



... next.