User talk:ElRodrigo

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)

"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."

We can't make the assumption that he's being "responsible". The video is Mike addressing Chris directly and saying "I'd be upset (which I'm well aware would make you happy) if you showed up at X at time Y (even though I'm aware going to X would result in you being punished)". And then he laughs. It was designed to be interpreted as bait, or at the very least clearly reads as bait.

The article reads "Particularly telling is Chris stating that Michael Snyder wanted to lure him in with an announcement of a "Pokemon tournament on the 22nd", despite Michael himself saying in this video (that Chris himself used as proof) that he really hoped that Chris didn't show up." Even if you still don't appreciate my above view, hopefully you can see that it's very easy to interpret the segment in the way I have (to the point where I'd say it's more difficult to interpret otherwise), and thus this section isn't valuable. I don't feel that it's "particularly telling" of anything. Chris has interpreted the video segment in a way that (at the very least, some) other people would.

I'm not going to speculate on how Mike could have better baited Chris. I don't get the impression that the call was planned, and that it was an off-the-cuff remark. I don't feel that that changes the content.

On the subject of the sign, the section as-is is speculating. "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."

Rearranging the sentence: "Anyone else would have presumed it to be Michael Snyder, so it's 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." More simply: "Everyone else would know it was the same Mike, so there was no deception. Chris stated that he thought it was a different Mike." I don't really understand why you're calling what I'm saying a logical leap when you made the exact same assumption when you edited the article. In any case, you're right in that we don't know what the sign's alleged deception was. I'm not proposing that we change this to different speculation, but rather that the section be removed. Because it is, as we've both now pointed out, speculation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freecell (talk • contribs) 19:42, 9 July 2012 (PDT)