Difference between revisions of "User talk:ElRodrigo"
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
It's pretty clear that he means that "Mike" was the deception. The two parts don't disagree with one another, so I don't see what's valuable about that section. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Freecell|Freecell]] ([[User talk:Freecell|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Freecell|contribs]]) </span></small> 12:26, 9 July 2012 (PDT) | It's pretty clear that he means that "Mike" was the deception. The two parts don't disagree with one another, so I don't see what's valuable about that section. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Freecell|Freecell]] ([[User talk:Freecell|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Freecell|contribs]]) </span></small> 12:26, 9 July 2012 (PDT) | ||
* I honestly don't think that Michael Snyder would deliberately bring back an insane manchild to his store to endanger his customers, much less after the events of [[6th June 2010]], where he thought he was taking photos of his daughter. That's not the least bit socially responsible. Besides which, the troll called him, remember? If Michael Snyder really wanted to bait Chris, would the best way be to wait until some random troll calls him, to mention it off handedly in the off chance that Chris would hear it, [[Autism|interpret it as sarcasm]], and come? Come on now. Also, your point about the sign is really stretching it. I mean no disrespect, but I'm pointing this out, you're more or less going on speculation instead of facts, which goes against what the CWCki is trying to accomplish. [[User:ElRodrigo|ElRodrigo]] 16:21, 9 July 2012 (PDT) | |||
Revision as of 18:22, 9 July 2012
On whether or not MS was trying to bait Chris
"If you had a message for [Chris], what would it be?"
"We're having a Pokemon tournament on the 22nd. I SUUURE hope that he doesn't show up. That would REALLY be bad. [laughs]"
1. He's giving Chris a date to 'not show up'. If he didn't want Chris to show up, he wouldn't bother telling him "we're doing something you enjoy at this date, and if you showed up, I'd be really upset!"
2. The heavy emphasis on "SUUURE" and "REALLY" are pretty clear indications of sardonicism. The laughing at the end pretty much makes it impossible to interpret as "Don't come to my store."
He knows that Chris wants to make him mad, and so saying "I'd be upset if you did X at time Y" is deliberate bait.
As for the other part of the revision that you undid: ("It's also funny how Chris believed the "New Owner" sign was an act of deception, despite the fact that he stated he thought it was a different Mike, unlike anyone else who would have presumed it to be Michael Snyder.")
The only two things Chris ever says about the sign are 'It said "Mike", so I thought it was different from the Michael I know' and 'It was deliberate deception.'
It's pretty clear that he means that "Mike" was the deception. The two parts don't disagree with one another, so I don't see what's valuable about that section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freecell (talk • contribs) 12:26, 9 July 2012 (PDT)
- I honestly don't think that Michael Snyder would deliberately bring back an insane manchild to his store to endanger his customers, much less after the events of 6th June 2010, where he thought he was taking photos of his daughter. That's not the least bit socially responsible. Besides which, the troll called him, remember? If Michael Snyder really wanted to bait Chris, would the best way be to wait until some random troll calls him, to mention it off handedly in the off chance that Chris would hear it, interpret it as sarcasm, and come? Come on now. Also, your point about the sign is really stretching it. I mean no disrespect, but I'm pointing this out, you're more or less going on speculation instead of facts, which goes against what the CWCki is trying to accomplish. ElRodrigo 16:21, 9 July 2012 (PDT)