Difference between revisions of "Talk:Sonichu Forum"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Griffintown (talk | contribs) |
|||
| (9 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
| 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) | |||
:* 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) | |||
== "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) | |||
: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) | |||
::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) | |||
Latest revision as of 21:51, 21 September 2010
Yes, it's legit. Copy and paste Chris's posts from here. --Champthom 02:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Premature friend zone placement
So that's news. Apparently as of January 29th Chris actually understood that The wallflower didn't want him bad.--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. Griffintown 05:03, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- True, but was there ever any doubt? -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. -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. 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? --Champthom 19:16, 21 September 2010 (PDT)
- Does "Chris and his filthy lies" work any better? --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.--Champthom 19:44, 21 September 2010 (PDT)
- In addition, dated titles have kinda been how we formatted other similar articles. --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. --MEANWHILE 19:50, 21 September 2010 (PDT)