Talk:Gal-Pals and Past Sweethearts (CWCipedia page) - Revision history

Beat: /* but i dont know what he means... */

2010-04-21T20:47:52Z

but i dont know what he means...

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:47, 21 April 2010
Line 53:		Line 53:

	::Chris logic, ladies and gentlemen. I wonder how he would react if he discovered that we also 'corrected' his version of this page. As in we made this page about the CWCipedia page. --[[User:Edward\|Edward]] 20:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)		::Chris logic, ladies and gentlemen. I wonder how he would react if he discovered that we also 'corrected' his version of this page. As in we made this page about the CWCipedia page. --[[User:Edward\|Edward]] 20:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
			:::Hey, NaCL, could you screencap that e-mail. I would make a good addition to the page.--[[User:Beat\|Beat]] 20:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

	==Megan==		==Megan==

Champthom: /* but i dont know what he means 2 */

2010-04-21T20:14:56Z

but i dont know what he means 2

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:14, 21 April 2010
Line 64:		Line 64:
	So what does he means with "Two years in a dating etc". Does he mean that it happend twice? (poor girl) Or that it happened the second time he entered? (so like in sophomore year). Any lingCWCstics who want to break their head over this conundrum? Anyone? :3 [[User:RachmaninovDESU\|RachmaninovDESU]] 16:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)		So what does he means with "Two years in a dating etc". Does he mean that it happend twice? (poor girl) Or that it happened the second time he entered? (so like in sophomore year). Any lingCWCstics who want to break their head over this conundrum? Anyone? :3 [[User:RachmaninovDESU\|RachmaninovDESU]] 16:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
	:* Just reposting this because it's somewhat important and my last post got jacked. I want to incorporate this day in the cwchronology. :3 [[User:RachmaninovDESU\|RachmaninovDESU]] 20:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)		:* Just reposting this because it's somewhat important and my last post got jacked. I want to incorporate this day in the cwchronology. :3 [[User:RachmaninovDESU\|RachmaninovDESU]] 20:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
			*The dating matching thing? I'm guessing it's something I did in junior high - everyone fills out a survey with a few questions about what you like and that sort of thing, they put it through a computer and for a buck, you can get a list of your top matches. They'd usually do it around Valentine's Day as a fundraiser for some club or another. I remember doing it in junior high around the same time Chris would have still been in high school. --[[User:Champthom\|Champthom]] 20:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

RachmaninovDESU at 20:12, 21 April 2010

2010-04-21T20:12:21Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:12, 21 April 2010
Line 57:		Line 57:

	Chris has finally admitted he took it all too far. I thought it was kinda sad, that entry. It is probably the first time in all my trolling of him I've actually felt sad for him. This is a sign of Chris actually learning and growing (and I'm pretty sure there have been a few things here and there of late). Should we have a go at wikifying them? --[[User:YawningSquirtleRedux\|YawningSquirtleRedux]] 04:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)		Chris has finally admitted he took it all too far. I thought it was kinda sad, that entry. It is probably the first time in all my trolling of him I've actually felt sad for him. This is a sign of Chris actually learning and growing (and I'm pretty sure there have been a few things here and there of late). Should we have a go at wikifying them? --[[User:YawningSquirtleRedux\|YawningSquirtleRedux]] 04:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

			== but i dont know what he means 2 ==

			''She was funny, sweet and possibly a bit quirky. We shared a few classes, and she was a cheerleader the same year as Laura Beth Dorazio during my Freshman Year, yet Molly was a Freshman too back then. '''Two years in a dating match-up thing they had''' every Valentines Day at M.H.S., I got matched up with Molly. The ONLY match-up I felt was a good match-up at all back then.''

			So what does he means with "Two years in a dating etc". Does he mean that it happend twice? (poor girl) Or that it happened the second time he entered? (so like in sophomore year). Any lingCWCstics who want to break their head over this conundrum? Anyone? :3 [[User:RachmaninovDESU\|RachmaninovDESU]] 16:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
			:* Just reposting this because it's somewhat important and my last post got jacked. I want to incorporate this day in the cwchronology. :3 [[User:RachmaninovDESU\|RachmaninovDESU]] 20:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

YawningSquirtleRedux at 04:49, 21 April 2010

2010-04-21T04:49:41Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:49, 21 April 2010
Line 53:		Line 53:

	::Chris logic, ladies and gentlemen. I wonder how he would react if he discovered that we also 'corrected' his version of this page. As in we made this page about the CWCipedia page. --[[User:Edward\|Edward]] 20:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)		::Chris logic, ladies and gentlemen. I wonder how he would react if he discovered that we also 'corrected' his version of this page. As in we made this page about the CWCipedia page. --[[User:Edward\|Edward]] 20:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

			==Megan==

			Chris has finally admitted he took it all too far. I thought it was kinda sad, that entry. It is probably the first time in all my trolling of him I've actually felt sad for him. This is a sign of Chris actually learning and growing (and I'm pretty sure there have been a few things here and there of late). Should we have a go at wikifying them? --[[User:YawningSquirtleRedux\|YawningSquirtleRedux]] 04:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Alteceastlansing: /* Should we do side-by-sides? */

2010-04-20T21:50:48Z

Should we do side-by-sides?

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:50, 20 April 2010
Line 31:		Line 31:
	On the one hand, I really like the idea of deconstructing Chris's bullshit, then having Chris read the analysis and possibly rage about it. If writers shoot Chris's ramblings full of holes, trolls point Chris to the article, and he goes on YouTube to scream NUH-UH or tries to re-write the CWCki analysis, some funny stuff could happen.		On the one hand, I really like the idea of deconstructing Chris's bullshit, then having Chris read the analysis and possibly rage about it. If writers shoot Chris's ramblings full of holes, trolls point Chris to the article, and he goes on YouTube to scream NUH-UH or tries to re-write the CWCki analysis, some funny stuff could happen.

	On the other hand, the CWCki is mostly about documenting the madness rather than being part of it. Despite the pointed way the articles are written, there's still a level of objectivity about the CWCki that may be disrupted by injecting commentary. If Chris chooses to make the CWCki his business and we report on it, that's one thing. But I could see the powers-that-be not wanting something like that to be possibly be used to bait Chris into raging. Side-by-sides have that short-term comedy potential, but to the average CWCki user and Chris-chan follower, the current formatting of the articles using summaries, wikilinks, and the reader's common sense adequately frame the situation and point out the insanity. There is some lasting humor potential if the side-by-sides are well-written, but they run the risk of getting in the way and not really adding anything that's not already assumed. Brevity is the soul of wit, and all that. [[User:Alteceastlansing\|Alteceastlansing]] 21:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)		On the other hand, the CWCki is mostly about documenting the madness rather than being part of it. Despite the pointed way the articles are written, there's still a level of objectivity about the CWCki that may be disrupted by injecting commentary. If Chris chooses to make the CWCki his business and we report on it, that's one thing. But I could see the powers-that-be not wanting something like that to possibly be used to bait Chris into raging. Side-by-sides have that short-term comedy potential, but to the average CWCki user and Chris-chan follower, the current formatting of the articles using summaries, wikilinks, and the reader's common sense adequately frame the situation and point out the insanity. There is some lasting humor potential if the side-by-sides are well-written, but they run the risk of getting in the way and not really adding anything that's not already assumed. Brevity is the soul of wit, and all that. [[User:Alteceastlansing\|Alteceastlansing]] 21:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

	== but i dont know what he means... ==		== but i dont know what he means... ==

Alteceastlansing: /* Should we do side-by-sides? */

2010-04-20T21:50:16Z

Should we do side-by-sides?

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:50, 20 April 2010
Line 31:		Line 31:
	On the one hand, I really like the idea of deconstructing Chris's bullshit, then having Chris read the analysis and possibly rage about it. If writers shoot Chris's ramblings full of holes, trolls point Chris to the article, and he goes on YouTube to scream NUH-UH or tries to re-write the CWCki analysis, some funny stuff could happen.		On the one hand, I really like the idea of deconstructing Chris's bullshit, then having Chris read the analysis and possibly rage about it. If writers shoot Chris's ramblings full of holes, trolls point Chris to the article, and he goes on YouTube to scream NUH-UH or tries to re-write the CWCki analysis, some funny stuff could happen.

	On the other hand, the CWCki is mostly about documenting the madness rather than being part of it. Despite the pointed way the articles are written, there's still a level of objectivity about the CWCki that may be disrupted by injecting commentary. If Chris chooses to make the CWCki his business and we report on it, that's one thing. ~~Baiting him to rage isn't really the CWCki's purpose, and~~ I could see the powers-that-be not wanting that to ~~happen~~. Side-by-sides have that short-term comedy potential, but to the average CWCki user and Chris-chan follower, the current formatting of the articles using summaries, wikilinks, and the reader's common sense adequately frame the situation and point out the insanity. There is some lasting humor potential if the side-by-sides are well-written, but they run the risk of getting in the way and not really adding anything that's not already assumed. Brevity is the soul of wit, and all that. [[User:Alteceastlansing\|Alteceastlansing]] 21:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)		On the other hand, the CWCki is mostly about documenting the madness rather than being part of it. Despite the pointed way the articles are written, there's still a level of objectivity about the CWCki that may be disrupted by injecting commentary. If Chris chooses to make the CWCki his business and we report on it, that's one thing. But I could see the powers-that-be not wanting something like that to be possibly be used to bait Chris into raging. Side-by-sides have that short-term comedy potential, but to the average CWCki user and Chris-chan follower, the current formatting of the articles using summaries, wikilinks, and the reader's common sense adequately frame the situation and point out the insanity. There is some lasting humor potential if the side-by-sides are well-written, but they run the risk of getting in the way and not really adding anything that's not already assumed. Brevity is the soul of wit, and all that. [[User:Alteceastlansing\|Alteceastlansing]] 21:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

	== but i dont know what he means... ==		== but i dont know what he means... ==

Alteceastlansing: /* Should we do side-by-sides? */

2010-04-20T21:47:02Z

Should we do side-by-sides?

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:47, 20 April 2010
Line 31:		Line 31:
	On the one hand, I really like the idea of deconstructing Chris's bullshit, then having Chris read the analysis and possibly rage about it. If writers shoot Chris's ramblings full of holes, trolls point Chris to the article, and he goes on YouTube to scream NUH-UH or tries to re-write the CWCki analysis, some funny stuff could happen.		On the one hand, I really like the idea of deconstructing Chris's bullshit, then having Chris read the analysis and possibly rage about it. If writers shoot Chris's ramblings full of holes, trolls point Chris to the article, and he goes on YouTube to scream NUH-UH or tries to re-write the CWCki analysis, some funny stuff could happen.

	On the other hand, the CWCki is mostly about documenting the madness rather than being part of it. If Chris chooses to make the CWCki his business and we report on it, that's one thing. Baiting him to rage isn't really the CWCki's purpose, and I could see the powers-that-be not wanting that to happen. Side-by-sides have that short-term comedy potential, but to the average CWCki user and Chris-chan follower, the current formatting of the articles using summaries, wikilinks, and the reader's common sense adequately frame the situation and point out the insanity. There is some lasting humor potential if the side-by-sides are well-written, but they run the risk of getting in the way and not really adding anything that's not already assumed. Brevity is the soul of wit, and all that. [[User:Alteceastlansing\|Alteceastlansing]] 21:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)		On the other hand, the CWCki is mostly about documenting the madness rather than being part of it. Despite the pointed way the articles are written, there's still a level of objectivity about the CWCki that may be disrupted by injecting commentary. If Chris chooses to make the CWCki his business and we report on it, that's one thing. Baiting him to rage isn't really the CWCki's purpose, and I could see the powers-that-be not wanting that to happen. Side-by-sides have that short-term comedy potential, but to the average CWCki user and Chris-chan follower, the current formatting of the articles using summaries, wikilinks, and the reader's common sense adequately frame the situation and point out the insanity. There is some lasting humor potential if the side-by-sides are well-written, but they run the risk of getting in the way and not really adding anything that's not already assumed. Brevity is the soul of wit, and all that. [[User:Alteceastlansing\|Alteceastlansing]] 21:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

	== but i dont know what he means... ==		== but i dont know what he means... ==

Alteceastlansing: /* Should we do side-by-sides? */

2010-04-20T21:42:19Z

Should we do side-by-sides?

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:42, 20 April 2010
Line 28:		Line 28:
	:We can do a revised version with strike throughs like what Chris has done with his version of the ED page		:We can do a revised version with strike throughs like what Chris has done with his version of the ED page
	[[User:Dkd\|Dkd]] 15:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)		[[User:Dkd\|Dkd]] 15:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

			On the one hand, I really like the idea of deconstructing Chris's bullshit, then having Chris read the analysis and possibly rage about it. If writers shoot Chris's ramblings full of holes, trolls point Chris to the article, and he goes on YouTube to scream NUH-UH or tries to re-write the CWCki analysis, some funny stuff could happen.

			On the other hand, the CWCki is mostly about documenting the madness rather than being part of it. If Chris chooses to make the CWCki his business and we report on it, that's one thing. Baiting him to rage isn't really the CWCki's purpose, and I could see the powers-that-be not wanting that to happen. Side-by-sides have that short-term comedy potential, but to the average CWCki user and Chris-chan follower, the current formatting of the articles using summaries, wikilinks, and the reader's common sense adequately frame the situation and point out the insanity. There is some lasting humor potential if the side-by-sides are well-written, but they run the risk of getting in the way and not really adding anything that's not already assumed. Brevity is the soul of wit, and all that. [[User:Alteceastlansing\|Alteceastlansing]] 21:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

	== but i dont know what he means... ==		== but i dont know what he means... ==

Edward at 20:53, 20 April 2010

2010-04-20T20:53:30Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:53, 20 April 2010
Line 47:		Line 47:

	:Hilariously, it seems like he thinks the CWCki is a Message Board (despite what Champ always tells us on these talk pages) and that he's aiming to change these pages to fit his image... on the CWCipedia. --[[User:Blazer\|Blazer]] 20:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)		:Hilariously, it seems like he thinks the CWCki is a Message Board (despite what Champ always tells us on these talk pages) and that he's aiming to change these pages to fit his image... on the CWCipedia. --[[User:Blazer\|Blazer]] 20:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

			::Chris logic, ladies and gentlemen. I wonder how he would react if he discovered that we also 'corrected' his version of this page. As in we made this page about the CWCipedia page. --[[User:Edward\|Edward]] 20:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Blazer: /* but i dont know what he means... */

2010-04-20T20:47:46Z

but i dont know what he means...

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:47, 20 April 2010
Line 43:		Line 43:
	:I'm lost on what he means in the sentence beginning "I found my peace with her".		:I'm lost on what he means in the sentence beginning "I found my peace with her".
	:Also, I thought this might be worth sharing since he seems to be blaming himself and has switched to blaming her a few hours later. --[[User:NaCl\|NaCl]] 20:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)		:Also, I thought this might be worth sharing since he seems to be blaming himself and has switched to blaming her a few hours later. --[[User:NaCl\|NaCl]] 20:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

			:*Iiiiiiinteresting. I'm guessing the "found my peace with her" means that, after he publicly embarrassed her (which it sounds like he did), he wiped his hands clean of the whole thing and laid the blame solely on her. [[Chris and remorse]] once again.

			:Hilariously, it seems like he thinks the CWCki is a Message Board (despite what Champ always tells us on these talk pages) and that he's aiming to change these pages to fit his image... on the CWCipedia. --[[User:Blazer\|Blazer]] 20:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:14, 21 April 2010
Line 64:		Line 64:
	So what does he means with "Two years in a dating etc". Does he mean that it happend twice? (poor girl) Or that it happened the second time he entered? (so like in sophomore year). Any lingCWCstics who want to break their head over this conundrum? Anyone? :3 [[User:RachmaninovDESU\|RachmaninovDESU]] 16:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)		So what does he means with "Two years in a dating etc". Does he mean that it happend twice? (poor girl) Or that it happened the second time he entered? (so like in sophomore year). Any lingCWCstics who want to break their head over this conundrum? Anyone? :3 [[User:RachmaninovDESU\|RachmaninovDESU]] 16:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
	:* Just reposting this because it's somewhat important and my last post got jacked. I want to incorporate this day in the cwchronology. :3 [[User:RachmaninovDESU\|RachmaninovDESU]] 20:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)		:* Just reposting this because it's somewhat important and my last post got jacked. I want to incorporate this day in the cwchronology. :3 [[User:RachmaninovDESU\|RachmaninovDESU]] 20:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
			*The dating matching thing? I'm guessing it's something I did in junior high - everyone fills out a survey with a few questions about what you like and that sort of thing, they put it through a computer and for a buck, you can get a list of your top matches. They'd usually do it around Valentine's Day as a fundraiser for some club or another. I remember doing it in junior high around the same time Chris would have still been in high school. --[[User:Champthom\|Champthom]] 20:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)