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

"The Wallflower"

I was under the impression that the only reason we still referred to Heather as "The Wallflower" is because Chris hadn't yet given her name out. Well, here we go. Is it time we drop this whole "wallflower" shtick? I think so. Kynes 03:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

no, it's because she requested it. obviously she's going to fucking knife chris. i hope she does. Clydec 03:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

• I agree. Unless she's making a stong stand against Chris IRL, he will not stop. There's nothing we can do except maintaining our part of the deal and blanking her name. Griffintown 03:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
• No. We aren't ED, we aren't Chris and we are better than Chris (by and large). Until the Wallflower changes her mind, she remains the Wallflower. Everyone with half a brain can find her real name now anyway if they want, even me and I'm super-spastic. I do agree with Clyde though, I hope she guts him like a fish. I would lol. Plus... I find 'The Wallflower funnier anyway. -Ronichu 03:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

• I disagree. I would rather we include her name on the page but not link it to the Wallflower. I am very opposed to the censoring of any documents by Chris, as people deserve to see Chris's work totally unaltered and uncensored. We still have her name in various videos where Chris says her name but not link her to the Wallflower. That is my two cents. --Champthom 08:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

• Must say I agree with Champers on this one. CWCki isn't a welfare organisation; keeping her name and pics off her artice is the polite thing to do, but Chris has been dropping her name so often that it's naive to assume people who want to find her dox won't be able to. We shouldn't alter or censor historical documents, it compromises our status etc etc serious buisiness ok? RachmaninovDESU 15:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The Happy Couple

I just wanted to send a big congratulations to Clyde for his marriage to Sarah, and for the birth of their child. It's so nice when a violent rape has a happy and totally believable ending Inkmonkey 04:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

• Based on Chris' knowledge of women and sex I'm not at all surprised that he believes rape = love. There is a Trope on TVTropes about it, after all. -Ronichu 04:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

• This sounds like a pretty recent development. Wasn't Chris going on about how he was gonna slit Clyde's throat for raping panda just a few videos ago? Who's feeding him this information?--Beat 04:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
• Point, but they're not mutually exclusive. Chris thought Clyde raped Panda, so was angry about it; not because he thought of how this might have affected her (HAH!), but Clyde took something from him. Chris probably just assumed that, as the trolls of he time told him, after the rape Panda got addicted to sex and married Clyde. Makes sense to me, bearing in mind this is Chris and he believes all kind of demented things. -Ronichu 07:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

• I wouldn't be surprised if to Chris there were two Clyde Cash's. Not to say he thinks there are physically two, he just thinks of two different people he attributes to the same person. 1. The rapist who is the face of every single troll. Whenever there's a troll (Billy Mays, whoever) he links them with Clyde Cash in his mind, the guy is the Avatar of the Troll. 2. The husband of a woman he once fapped too. Whenever thinking about him like this he doesn't think "Clyde and Panda", he thinks "Panda and her husband, who is Clyde". He publically wishes his ex gal-pal happiness while at the same time if confronted by Clyde he thinks slitting someone's throat is an appropriate measure, and doesn't consider the possibility these two things are different. I have no doubt if he was contacted by Panda and Clyde, and Clyde separately he would be polite in the first responses, and threatening in the second. Edit: Sorry, forgot the ~'s --Borednewb 12:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Should we do side-by-sides?

The folks at RationalWiki do side-by-side commentary on weird stuff that's posted in the interblags (Example: The motherfucking Moon). Heck, they have the entire Bible out there for people to post comments on. I thought this format was pretty easy to follow. Should we do something similar to this CWCipedia page, and other longer ramblings that Chris has posted? --wwwwolf (wake me when you need me) 12:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Could be interesting, as long as it avoided being just "Lol Chris lies AGAIN". If we linked "Chris and lies" every time he lied you could navigate the whole site from a 'what links here' of that page. Maybe just direct contradictions of his statements, preferably with things Chris himself has said in the past. -- Borednewb 12:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I looked at the Moon article linked; I think this is a fantastic idea and I support it.-Ronichu 15:37, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Do we really have that much to say about Chris? The stuff he spews is generally so insane that going through every paragraph he writes and outlining in detail why he's wrong seems pointless.--Beat 15:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking it more in terms of preserving Chris's originial typos and links, and making it clearer for the reader which text is originial and which is commentary. I'm not suggesting we need to match Chris's ramblings with equal amount of rambling of our own just to fill the page. Strike-throughs (as suggested below) is one option, but IMHO far less readable. --wwwwolf (wake me when you need me) 18:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

We can do a revised version with strike throughs like what Chris has done with his version of the ED page

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. 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. Alteceastlansing 21:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

but i dont know what he means...

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 RachmaninovDESU 16:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

On a similar subject I had emailed him about his using Wallflower's real name before he changed it and got this reply.

"You can relay the following to your fellow Trolls on their Message Board:

Heather left me with over TWO Weeks of Lingering Heartaches, and they really hurt. I found my peace with her after I had personally and in-person informed her of that and embarrassed her a bit. I made my mistake, and I learned from it. She is in the past; you all STILL have a page dedicated to her, and I WILL correct it along with the rest. You Trolls Can Go Fuck Off!"

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. --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. --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. --Edward 20:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)