Talk:Sonichu Forum - Revision history

MEANWHILE: /* "Chris is literally a filthy liar" */

2010-09-22T02:51:24Z

"Chris is literally a filthy liar"

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:51, 21 September 2010
Line 13:		Line 13:
	:*I think what we should do is title these e-mails by date and time stamp - less subjective, I say. Unless we can prove without a doubt that he is lying (we can't), I don't like the term "liar" or "lie" being used here.--[[User:Champthom\|Champthom]] 19:44, 21 September 2010 (PDT)		:*I think what we should do is title these e-mails by date and time stamp - less subjective, I say. Unless we can prove without a doubt that he is lying (we can't), I don't like the term "liar" or "lie" being used here.--[[User:Champthom\|Champthom]] 19:44, 21 September 2010 (PDT)
	::In addition, dated titles have kinda been how we formatted other similar articles. --[[User:Anonymax\|Anonymax]] 19:49, 21 September 2010 (PDT)		::In addition, dated titles have kinda been how we formatted other similar articles. --[[User:Anonymax\|Anonymax]] 19:49, 21 September 2010 (PDT)
	:***Not as relevent, but maybe questionable claims or debatable statements? Or something like that, which provokes the idea that what Chris says is under scrutiny. --[[User:MEANWHILE\|MEANWHILE]] 19:50, 21 September 2010 (PDT)		:::*Not as relevent, but maybe questionable claims or debatable statements? Or something like that, which provokes the idea that what Chris says is under scrutiny. --[[User:MEANWHILE\|MEANWHILE]] 19:50, 21 September 2010 (PDT)

MEANWHILE: /* "Chris is literally a filthy liar" */

2010-09-22T02:50:48Z

"Chris is literally a filthy liar"

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:50, 21 September 2010
Line 13:		Line 13:
	:*I think what we should do is title these e-mails by date and time stamp - less subjective, I say. Unless we can prove without a doubt that he is lying (we can't), I don't like the term "liar" or "lie" being used here.--[[User:Champthom\|Champthom]] 19:44, 21 September 2010 (PDT)		:*I think what we should do is title these e-mails by date and time stamp - less subjective, I say. Unless we can prove without a doubt that he is lying (we can't), I don't like the term "liar" or "lie" being used here.--[[User:Champthom\|Champthom]] 19:44, 21 September 2010 (PDT)
	::In addition, dated titles have kinda been how we formatted other similar articles. --[[User:Anonymax\|Anonymax]] 19:49, 21 September 2010 (PDT)		::In addition, dated titles have kinda been how we formatted other similar articles. --[[User:Anonymax\|Anonymax]] 19:49, 21 September 2010 (PDT)
			:***Not as relevent, but maybe questionable claims or debatable statements? Or something like that, which provokes the idea that what Chris says is under scrutiny. --[[User:MEANWHILE\|MEANWHILE]] 19:50, 21 September 2010 (PDT)

Anonymax: /* "Chris is literally a filthy liar" */

2010-09-22T02:49:46Z

"Chris is literally a filthy liar"

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:49, 21 September 2010
Line 12:		Line 12:
	:Does "Chris and his filthy lies" work any better? --[[User:Anonymax\|Anonymax]] 19:25, 21 September 2010 (PDT)		:Does "Chris and his filthy lies" work any better? --[[User:Anonymax\|Anonymax]] 19:25, 21 September 2010 (PDT)
	:*I think what we should do is title these e-mails by date and time stamp - less subjective, I say. Unless we can prove without a doubt that he is lying (we can't), I don't like the term "liar" or "lie" being used here.--[[User:Champthom\|Champthom]] 19:44, 21 September 2010 (PDT)		:*I think what we should do is title these e-mails by date and time stamp - less subjective, I say. Unless we can prove without a doubt that he is lying (we can't), I don't like the term "liar" or "lie" being used here.--[[User:Champthom\|Champthom]] 19:44, 21 September 2010 (PDT)
			::In addition, dated titles have kinda been how we formatted other similar articles. --[[User:Anonymax\|Anonymax]] 19:49, 21 September 2010 (PDT)

Champthom: /* "Chris is literally a filthy liar" */

2010-09-22T02:44:19Z

"Chris is literally a filthy liar"

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:44, 21 September 2010
Line 11:		Line 11:
	Anything suggestions for a less inflammatory title? Yes, in the context it's suggestion Chris is filthy and Chris is a liar, ergo making him a filthy liar but generally it's our policy not to overdo it. So any suggestions for a less inflammatory title for that section? --[[User:Champthom\|Champthom]] 19:16, 21 September 2010 (PDT)		Anything suggestions for a less inflammatory title? Yes, in the context it's suggestion Chris is filthy and Chris is a liar, ergo making him a filthy liar but generally it's our policy not to overdo it. So any suggestions for a less inflammatory title for that section? --[[User:Champthom\|Champthom]] 19:16, 21 September 2010 (PDT)
	:Does "Chris and his filthy lies" work any better? --[[User:Anonymax\|Anonymax]] 19:25, 21 September 2010 (PDT)		:Does "Chris and his filthy lies" work any better? --[[User:Anonymax\|Anonymax]] 19:25, 21 September 2010 (PDT)
			:*I think what we should do is title these e-mails by date and time stamp - less subjective, I say. Unless we can prove without a doubt that he is lying (we can't), I don't like the term "liar" or "lie" being used here.--[[User:Champthom\|Champthom]] 19:44, 21 September 2010 (PDT)

Anonymax: /* "Chris is literally a filthy liar" */

2010-09-22T02:25:47Z

"Chris is literally a filthy liar"

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:25, 21 September 2010
Line 10:		Line 10:

	Anything suggestions for a less inflammatory title? Yes, in the context it's suggestion Chris is filthy and Chris is a liar, ergo making him a filthy liar but generally it's our policy not to overdo it. So any suggestions for a less inflammatory title for that section? --[[User:Champthom\|Champthom]] 19:16, 21 September 2010 (PDT)		Anything suggestions for a less inflammatory title? Yes, in the context it's suggestion Chris is filthy and Chris is a liar, ergo making him a filthy liar but generally it's our policy not to overdo it. So any suggestions for a less inflammatory title for that section? --[[User:Champthom\|Champthom]] 19:16, 21 September 2010 (PDT)
			:Does "Chris and his filthy lies" work any better? --[[User:Anonymax\|Anonymax]] 19:25, 21 September 2010 (PDT)

Champthom: /* "Chris is literally a filthy liar" */ new section

2010-09-22T02:16:53Z

"Chris is literally a filthy liar": new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:16, 21 September 2010
Line 6:		Line 6:
	:* Hey Griff, I liked the way you described that revelation so I stuck it in the Wallflower (CWCipedia article) page. At least this page isn't completely orphaned now. -[[User:Ronichu\|Ronichu]] 06:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)		:* Hey Griff, I liked the way you described that revelation so I stuck it in the Wallflower (CWCipedia article) page. At least this page isn't completely orphaned now. -[[User:Ronichu\|Ronichu]] 06:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
	::* I know my comment sounds like "No Shit, Sherlock!" but it is so blatantly wrong it enlightens us on how Chris thinks. Feel free to run with anything I say and thanks for using it. [[User:Griffintown\|Griffintown]] 15:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)		::* I know my comment sounds like "No Shit, Sherlock!" but it is so blatantly wrong it enlightens us on how Chris thinks. Feel free to run with anything I say and thanks for using it. [[User:Griffintown\|Griffintown]] 15:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

			== "Chris is literally a filthy liar" ==

			Anything suggestions for a less inflammatory title? Yes, in the context it's suggestion Chris is filthy and Chris is a liar, ergo making him a filthy liar but generally it's our policy not to overdo it. So any suggestions for a less inflammatory title for that section? --[[User:Champthom\|Champthom]] 19:16, 21 September 2010 (PDT)

Griffintown at 15:33, 21 April 2010

2010-04-21T15:33:09Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:33, 21 April 2010
Line 5:		Line 5:
	:* True, but was there ever any doubt? -[[User:Ronichu\|Ronichu]] 06:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)		:* True, but was there ever any doubt? -[[User:Ronichu\|Ronichu]] 06:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
	:* Hey Griff, I liked the way you described that revelation so I stuck it in the Wallflower (CWCipedia article) page. At least this page isn't completely orphaned now. -[[User:Ronichu\|Ronichu]] 06:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)		:* Hey Griff, I liked the way you described that revelation so I stuck it in the Wallflower (CWCipedia article) page. At least this page isn't completely orphaned now. -[[User:Ronichu\|Ronichu]] 06:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
			::* I know my comment sounds like "No Shit, Sherlock!" but it is so blatantly wrong it enlightens us on how Chris thinks. Feel free to run with anything I say and thanks for using it. [[User:Griffintown\|Griffintown]] 15:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Ronichu at 06:26, 21 April 2010

2010-04-21T06:26:45Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:26, 21 April 2010
Line 4:		Line 4:
	:This proves us that Chris is one sick puppy. Not only this tells us that all the videos he did on March 2010 when he claims he had a relationship with the Wallflower was false but it also turns the recent text he wrote about her on CWCipedia into a stalker fantasy. [[User:Griffintown\|Griffintown]] 05:03, 21 April 2010 (UTC)		:This proves us that Chris is one sick puppy. Not only this tells us that all the videos he did on March 2010 when he claims he had a relationship with the Wallflower was false but it also turns the recent text he wrote about her on CWCipedia into a stalker fantasy. [[User:Griffintown\|Griffintown]] 05:03, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
	:* True, but was there ever any doubt? -[[User:Ronichu\|Ronichu]] 06:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)		:* True, but was there ever any doubt? -[[User:Ronichu\|Ronichu]] 06:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
	:* Hey Griff, I liked the way you described that revelation so I stuck it in the Wallflower (CWCipedia article) page. -[[User:Ronichu\|Ronichu]] 06:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)		:* Hey Griff, I liked the way you described that revelation so I stuck it in the Wallflower (CWCipedia article) page. At least this page isn't completely orphaned now. -[[User:Ronichu\|Ronichu]] 06:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Ronichu at 06:25, 21 April 2010

2010-04-21T06:25:30Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:25, 21 April 2010
Line 4:		Line 4:
	:This proves us that Chris is one sick puppy. Not only this tells us that all the videos he did on March 2010 when he claims he had a relationship with the Wallflower was false but it also turns the recent text he wrote about her on CWCipedia into a stalker fantasy. [[User:Griffintown\|Griffintown]] 05:03, 21 April 2010 (UTC)		:This proves us that Chris is one sick puppy. Not only this tells us that all the videos he did on March 2010 when he claims he had a relationship with the Wallflower was false but it also turns the recent text he wrote about her on CWCipedia into a stalker fantasy. [[User:Griffintown\|Griffintown]] 05:03, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
	:* True, but was there ever any doubt? -[[User:Ronichu\|Ronichu]] 06:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)		:* True, but was there ever any doubt? -[[User:Ronichu\|Ronichu]] 06:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
			:* Hey Griff, I liked the way you described that revelation so I stuck it in the Wallflower (CWCipedia article) page. -[[User:Ronichu\|Ronichu]] 06:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Ronichu: /* Premature friend zone placement */

2010-04-21T06:18:58Z

Premature friend zone placement

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:18, 21 April 2010
Line 3:		Line 3:
	So that's news. Apparently as of January 29th Chris actually understood that The wallflower didn't want him bad.--[[User:Beat\|Beat]] 04:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)		So that's news. Apparently as of January 29th Chris actually understood that The wallflower didn't want him bad.--[[User:Beat\|Beat]] 04:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
	:This proves us that Chris is one sick puppy. Not only this tells us that all the videos he did on March 2010 when he claims he had a relationship with the Wallflower was false but it also turns the recent text he wrote about her on CWCipedia into a stalker fantasy. [[User:Griffintown\|Griffintown]] 05:03, 21 April 2010 (UTC)		:This proves us that Chris is one sick puppy. Not only this tells us that all the videos he did on March 2010 when he claims he had a relationship with the Wallflower was false but it also turns the recent text he wrote about her on CWCipedia into a stalker fantasy. [[User:Griffintown\|Griffintown]] 05:03, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
			:* True, but was there ever any doubt? -[[User:Ronichu\|Ronichu]] 06:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:51, 21 September 2010
Line 13:		Line 13:
	:*I think what we should do is title these e-mails by date and time stamp - less subjective, I say. Unless we can prove without a doubt that he is lying (we can't), I don't like the term "liar" or "lie" being used here.--[[User:Champthom\|Champthom]] 19:44, 21 September 2010 (PDT)		:*I think what we should do is title these e-mails by date and time stamp - less subjective, I say. Unless we can prove without a doubt that he is lying (we can't), I don't like the term "liar" or "lie" being used here.--[[User:Champthom\|Champthom]] 19:44, 21 September 2010 (PDT)
	::In addition, dated titles have kinda been how we formatted other similar articles. --[[User:Anonymax\|Anonymax]] 19:49, 21 September 2010 (PDT)		::In addition, dated titles have kinda been how we formatted other similar articles. --[[User:Anonymax\|Anonymax]] 19:49, 21 September 2010 (PDT)
	:***Not as relevent, but maybe questionable claims or debatable statements? Or something like that, which provokes the idea that what Chris says is under scrutiny. --[[User:MEANWHILE\|MEANWHILE]] 19:50, 21 September 2010 (PDT)		:::*Not as relevent, but maybe questionable claims or debatable statements? Or something like that, which provokes the idea that what Chris says is under scrutiny. --[[User:MEANWHILE\|MEANWHILE]] 19:50, 21 September 2010 (PDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:50, 21 September 2010
Line 13:		Line 13:
	:*I think what we should do is title these e-mails by date and time stamp - less subjective, I say. Unless we can prove without a doubt that he is lying (we can't), I don't like the term "liar" or "lie" being used here.--[[User:Champthom\|Champthom]] 19:44, 21 September 2010 (PDT)		:*I think what we should do is title these e-mails by date and time stamp - less subjective, I say. Unless we can prove without a doubt that he is lying (we can't), I don't like the term "liar" or "lie" being used here.--[[User:Champthom\|Champthom]] 19:44, 21 September 2010 (PDT)
	::In addition, dated titles have kinda been how we formatted other similar articles. --[[User:Anonymax\|Anonymax]] 19:49, 21 September 2010 (PDT)		::In addition, dated titles have kinda been how we formatted other similar articles. --[[User:Anonymax\|Anonymax]] 19:49, 21 September 2010 (PDT)
			:***Not as relevent, but maybe questionable claims or debatable statements? Or something like that, which provokes the idea that what Chris says is under scrutiny. --[[User:MEANWHILE\|MEANWHILE]] 19:50, 21 September 2010 (PDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:49, 21 September 2010
Line 12:		Line 12:
	:Does "Chris and his filthy lies" work any better? --[[User:Anonymax\|Anonymax]] 19:25, 21 September 2010 (PDT)		:Does "Chris and his filthy lies" work any better? --[[User:Anonymax\|Anonymax]] 19:25, 21 September 2010 (PDT)
	:*I think what we should do is title these e-mails by date and time stamp - less subjective, I say. Unless we can prove without a doubt that he is lying (we can't), I don't like the term "liar" or "lie" being used here.--[[User:Champthom\|Champthom]] 19:44, 21 September 2010 (PDT)		:*I think what we should do is title these e-mails by date and time stamp - less subjective, I say. Unless we can prove without a doubt that he is lying (we can't), I don't like the term "liar" or "lie" being used here.--[[User:Champthom\|Champthom]] 19:44, 21 September 2010 (PDT)
			::In addition, dated titles have kinda been how we formatted other similar articles. --[[User:Anonymax\|Anonymax]] 19:49, 21 September 2010 (PDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:44, 21 September 2010
Line 11:		Line 11:
	Anything suggestions for a less inflammatory title? Yes, in the context it's suggestion Chris is filthy and Chris is a liar, ergo making him a filthy liar but generally it's our policy not to overdo it. So any suggestions for a less inflammatory title for that section? --[[User:Champthom\|Champthom]] 19:16, 21 September 2010 (PDT)		Anything suggestions for a less inflammatory title? Yes, in the context it's suggestion Chris is filthy and Chris is a liar, ergo making him a filthy liar but generally it's our policy not to overdo it. So any suggestions for a less inflammatory title for that section? --[[User:Champthom\|Champthom]] 19:16, 21 September 2010 (PDT)
	:Does "Chris and his filthy lies" work any better? --[[User:Anonymax\|Anonymax]] 19:25, 21 September 2010 (PDT)		:Does "Chris and his filthy lies" work any better? --[[User:Anonymax\|Anonymax]] 19:25, 21 September 2010 (PDT)
			:*I think what we should do is title these e-mails by date and time stamp - less subjective, I say. Unless we can prove without a doubt that he is lying (we can't), I don't like the term "liar" or "lie" being used here.--[[User:Champthom\|Champthom]] 19:44, 21 September 2010 (PDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:33, 21 April 2010
Line 5:		Line 5:
	:* True, but was there ever any doubt? -[[User:Ronichu\|Ronichu]] 06:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)		:* True, but was there ever any doubt? -[[User:Ronichu\|Ronichu]] 06:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
	:* Hey Griff, I liked the way you described that revelation so I stuck it in the Wallflower (CWCipedia article) page. At least this page isn't completely orphaned now. -[[User:Ronichu\|Ronichu]] 06:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)		:* Hey Griff, I liked the way you described that revelation so I stuck it in the Wallflower (CWCipedia article) page. At least this page isn't completely orphaned now. -[[User:Ronichu\|Ronichu]] 06:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
			::* I know my comment sounds like "No Shit, Sherlock!" but it is so blatantly wrong it enlightens us on how Chris thinks. Feel free to run with anything I say and thanks for using it. [[User:Griffintown\|Griffintown]] 15:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)