In Reply to: Actually you not getting it posted by David Smith on November 17, 2015 at 15:21:11:
"Thank you for using the quote. You'll notice that it doesn't include words that suggest I was claiming that Chris said that, because I didn't."
Gosh, you did say that in a direct response to one of Chris's posts. If you weren't saying it to Chris who did you think you were saying to? By the way, that question is directed at you Dave Smith. apparently that level of specificity is needed for your understanding even when directly responding to your posts.
"You read that into it all by yourself because you are so anxious to argue."
Anxious to argue? I have already explained to you twice that those posts were parodies of typical audio asylum forum arguments and not actual arguments.
I just have to ask though (and for the record this question is for you, David Smith, just for the sake of clarity {and humor that you probably won't get [again (that includes these multiple brackets of sub explanations)]}) Who were you addressing this comment to if it wasn't Chris?
Your words directly posted to Chris's previous post.
"as you seemed to find out with bald2's mention of "kiddie porn". Whatever your intentions are, it doesn't change the content of your posts.
And suggesting women performers wish to be called "hotties" most definitely equates to cat calls."
Who is the "you" in that comment if it isn't Chris? Why mention that "And suggesting women performers wish to be called "hotties" most definitely equates to cat calls." if you were not attributing that comment to Chris?
For the record the above questions are for you, David Smith. Just for the sake of clarity. (for the record this statement of clarity is for the sake of sarcasm {a form of humor})
Like I said, I knew trying to explain these things to you would be a waste of time.
This comment is for Chris if he happens to be reading these posts.
Are you counting the layers?
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- I knew trying to explain things would be a waist of time. - Analog Scott 15:38:07 11/17/15 (17)
- Sorry - I've lost track of the layers! [nt] ;-) - Chris from Lafayette 17:21:54 11/17/15 (2)
- RE: Sorry - I've lost track of the layers! [nt] ;-) - Analog Scott 20:00:27 11/17/15 (0)
- RE: Sorry - I've lost track of the layers! [nt] ;-) - Analog Scott 19:56:31 11/17/15 (0)
- RE: I knew trying to explain things would be a waist of time. - David Smith 16:51:22 11/17/15 (13)
- RE: I knew trying to explain things would be a waist of time. - Analog Scott 17:34:18 11/17/15 (12)
- RE: I knew trying to explain things would be a waist of time. - David Smith 18:19:11 11/17/15 (11)
- nice try but a clear fail. - Analog Scott 18:38:34 11/17/15 (10)
- Un-f-ing believable - David Smith 19:04:46 11/17/15 (9)
- I can step aside if you really want to argue with yourself... - Analog Scott 19:43:22 11/17/15 (8)
- RE: I can step aside if you really want to argue with yourself... - David Smith 20:24:22 11/17/15 (0)
- RE: I can step aside if you really want to argue with yourself... - David Smith 20:11:51 11/17/15 (6)
- RE: I can step aside if you really want to argue with yourself... - Analog Scott 21:00:52 11/17/15 (5)
- RE: I can step aside if you really want to argue with yourself... - David Smith 21:26:06 11/17/15 (4)
- I think I posted this a few times before but it says it better than anything else - Analog Scott 01:08:12 11/18/15 (3)
- Excellent - I love K & P! [nt] - Chris from Lafayette 11:44:10 11/18/15 (2)
- They are awesome! And they are Yuja wang fans!!! - Analog Scott 19:19:35 11/18/15 (1)
- Wow - that's VERY impressive! [nt] ;-) - Chris from Lafayette 00:52:05 11/19/15 (0)