EXPOSED Where does Lemmie get all of her ideas?

[_moksha]

Dear wise penguin, please post a dick pic

That was a rather odd request given the family nature of the Shades board.

[_Lemmie]

Lemmie wrote: ↑Mon Dec 09, 2019 6:24 pm
Dear wise penguin, please post a dick pic

That was a rather odd request given the family nature of the Shades board.

Of course, the removed context is everything. If you recall, I said that as a joke in response to something like being told old women shouldn’t post here, even though many old men post here. Followed by a call for younger women. Which, of course, is a perfectly acceptable thing to say about women on a family-natured board.

[_EAllusion]

Lemmie - DT is deliberately taking you out of context because he thinks that's what you did to him and is making a point about that. He's attempting to parody what he thinks you did to him with your "incel" post.

[_Lemmie]

Lemmie - DT is deliberately taking you out of context because he thinks that's what you did to him and is making a point about that. He's attempting to parody what he thinks you did to him with your "incel" post.

No crap, Sherlock.

[_EAllusion]

No ____, Sherlock.

Ok, then your replies are strange. Yeah, of course he's mischaracterized what you said. That's the whole point.

[_Lemmie]

No ____, Sherlock.

Ok, then your replies are strange. Yeah, of course he's mischaracterized what you said. That's the whole point.

Then you missed the point of my joke back to Moksha, which I actually thought was pretty funny, considering the original thread.

And you missed the point of me responding to DT’s posts with facts about how I did not take him out of context, because he has never been able respond with facts when he thinks I took him out of context. His parody (“but Lemmie is serious about looking for stupid patterns. She was so Mormon") falls pretty flat after that.

But thank you for the board nannying. Maybe it’s time once again for you to update the assumptions you make about me.

[_EAllusion]

But thank you for the board nannying. Maybe it’s time once again for you to update the assumptions you make about me.

As a summary of the thrust of your comments here you wrote, "If you’re going to accuse others of misquoting and straw man arguments, DT, you shouldn’t misquote them, add words, and construct a straw man out of pieces of their words you misrepresent in an attempt to make your case."

This is weird if you understand he was doing this intentionally as a parody of what he's claiming you were doing. I thought you didn't realize this, so I thought I'd point it out. You, ever so kindly, replied to that with "no crap sherlock." Then I try to point out that if you get this, then your comments seem strange , and you reply to that by calling me out for "board nannying." That's not what board nannying is, but Ok.

You're a odd duck, Lemmie.

[_Lemmie]

Then you missed the point of my joke back to Moksha, which I actually thought was pretty funny, considering the original thread.

And you missed the point of me responding to DT’s posts with facts about how I did not take him out of context, because he has never been able respond with facts when he thinks I took him out of context. His parody (“but Lemmie is serious about looking for stupid patterns. She was so Mormon“) falls pretty flat after that. But thank you for the board nannying. Maybe it’s time once again for you to update the assumptions you make about me.

As a summary of the thrust of your comments here you wrote, "If you’re going to accuse others of misquoting and straw man arguments, DT, you shouldn’t misquote them, add words, and construct a straw man out of pieces of their words you misrepresent in an attempt to make your case."

This is weird if you understand he was doing this intentionally as a parody of what he's claiming you were doing. I thought you didn't realize this, so I thought I'd point it out. You, ever so kindly, replied to that with "no crap sherlock." Then I try to point out that if you get this, then your comments seem strange, and you reply to that by calling me out for "board nannying." That's not what board nannying is, but Ok.

You're a odd duck, Lemmie.

Why thank you! Coming from the oddest duck of all, I will take that as a compliment. Ever so kindly. Even though you decided to replace my summary of what I said with your summary of what you think I said. In other words, your opinion. Your inability to see your habit of intrusively and regularly board nannying in that way I find strange also, and of course I say that “ever so kindly.”

[_DoubtingThomas]

because he has never been able respond with facts when he thinks I took him out of context

You did, I could show some examples, but I don't want to fight with you anymore. Let's just be friends.