mehh..

[monstar1]

My dude is buggin' out. 

 

[onthenephs]

...Late night 
nt

 

[Methodical Management]

Get over yourself. 
I think you both have far more in common with one another than either of you would care to admit, particularly when it comes to estimating your own cleverness. 

You didn't choose to "connect the dots" between the two threads (like people would have trouble finding a thread that's also on page one anyway) until you posted a rebuttal to a SPECIFIC poster and then you characterized that SPECIFIC poster and his likely response in an insulting way.  

Please don't tryto get cute with this [im]plausible deniability "it COULD referto ANYTHING, you're just ASSUMING it was about ____" nonsense. You wanted people to interpret your post as a knock against aparticular member and that's exactly how most people will interpretit.  To act like the staff shouldn't see through that - when thepremise was transparent by design - is an insult to us and to pretendthat the message was more nuanced and sly than it actually is would be aninsult to you.  

100% of all the "subliminal jabs" thrown on this forum aren't "subliminal" at all.  They're simply implied.  And if you're preparing them so the "average" NT'er can get the "joke," then, all this elitist nonsense aside, you can't pretend that it takes a genius mind to uncover the "true" intent of the post.  

So, please spare me the convoluted defense.  We all know what you tried to do and I'm telling you that's not gonna fly. 

You're welcome to share your opinions with your fellow members, but you are NOT allowed to disrespect other users of this community.  That includes "sacrificing a troll," so long as that "troll" remains a member here.  

We have rules on this forum prohibiting insults and other disrespectful behavior.  Try it again and you're getting tossed.  

 

[bruce negro]

Originally Posted by Method Man

Get over yourself. 
I think you both have far more in common with one another than either of you would care to admit, particularly when it comes to estimating your own cleverness. 

You didn't choose to "connect the dots" between the two threads (like people would have trouble finding a thread that's also on page one anyway) until you posted a rebuttal to a SPECIFIC poster and then you characterized that SPECIFIC poster and his likely response in an insulting way.  

Please don't tryto get cute with this [im]plausible deniability "it COULD referto ANYTHING, you're just ASSUMING it was about ____" nonsense. You wanted people to interpret your post as a knock against aparticular member and that's exactly how most people will interpretit.  To act like the staff shouldn't see through that - when thepremise was transparent by design - is an insult to us and to pretendthat the message was more nuanced and sly than it actually is would be aninsult to you.  

100% of all the "subliminal jabs" thrown on this forum aren't "subliminal" at all.  They're simply implied.  And if you're preparing them so the "average" NT'er can get the "joke," then, all this elitist nonsense aside, you can't pretend that it takes a genius mind to uncover the "true" intent of the post.  

So, please spare me the convoluted defense.  We all know what you tried to do and I'm telling you that's not gonna fly. 

You're welcome to share your opinions with your fellow members, but you are NOT allowed to disrespect other users of this community.  That includes "sacrificing a troll," so long as that "troll" remains a member here.  

We have rules on this forum prohibiting insults and other disrespectful behavior.  Try it again and you're getting tossed.  

Read this entire post in a Harvey Spector voice