Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Just went with the first name off the top of my head, thats all.
Which happened to be my username. Haha, right.
Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
yeah, why dont you let AC defend himself? He knows damn well that post was a good natured jab at him, and it indeed earned many laughs.
I wasn't defending him. I was saying that was your intention.
Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
I simply said that the vid someone posted was more likely your reaction rather than AC's, that's all. Just a simple observation.
Exactly, you somehow ended up mentioning me again.
Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
I mention people all the time here, I name names, get used to it. You aint a unique snowflake.
Hahaha, bullshit.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, that's not really a good excuse.I didn't find it that bad...just that argument was stupid.
I find the youtube video and point about the youtube video to irrelevant, however, your point is not lost on these eyes.
Let me wastefully explain more why I didn't understand Roland's post. That poster was ONLY intended for just one person and would really only work for that one person AFTER that specific post. Of course, I expected others to pick up the idiom reference and find it slightly humorous...but the primary goal was a good natured laugh between two married men. That is why I don't understand how it fails unless TH didn't get any amusement out of it...but I would think that he would.
Also...did you like my reply to RJ's joke question? 😄
Originally posted by dadudemonNo. See, you fully missed my point.
I find the youtube video and point about the youtube video to irrelevant, however, your point is not lost on these eyes.Let me wastefully explain more why I didn't understand Roland's post. That poster was ONLY intended for just one person and would really only work for that one person AFTER that specific post. Of course, I expected others to pick up the idiom reference and find it slightly humorous...but the primary goal was a good natured laugh between two married men. That is why I don't understand how it fails unless TH didn't get any amusement out of it...but I would think that he would.
Also...did you like my reply to RJ's joke question? 😄
Originally posted by Bardock42
No. See, you fully missed my point.
You feel that my previous mentioning of NOT aiming for front page on ebaumsworld.com was not adequately justified with my reply to you. However, I do feel that it was more than adequately justified. You have fully missed my point, not the other way around.
Originally posted by dadudemonNot really. As I said, I didn't talk about you failing or not failing. I talked about how it does not matter what you aimed for if it still failed fully, it failed fully for an amateur as well as a professional. So, yeah, you either missed my point, or gave a reply that was in no way related to what I said even though your initial sentence claimed it was. Which was it?
You feel that my previous mentioning of NOT aiming for front page on ebaumsworld.com was not adequately justified with my reply to you. However, I do feel that it was more than adequately justified. You have fully missed my point, not the other way around.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Not really. As I said, I didn't talk about you failing or not failing. I talked about how it does not matter what you aimed for if it still failed fully, it failed fully for an amateur as well as a professional. So, yeah, you either missed my point, or gave a reply that was in no way related to what I said even though your initial sentence claimed it was. Which was it?
I have no idea what you're actually arguing. It looks EXACTLY like point I made about you above.
To answer your question, none of the above. The third option: "you made a perfectly placed post that was a witty play on the idiom 'who wears the pants in this relationship' and it was only applicable to that one post and has no place outside of that realm. Which makes me understand why you couldn't fathom Roland's reply post of 'you fail at making de-motivational posters' because it was quite obviously a poster for only one person and not a literally a 'de-motivational' poster."
I can understand why you would try to argue this point...but why not just say, "I don't think Roland got the poster"?