CoTT 2 House of Cards

[spike382]

27 minutes ago, clochette said:

Are you implying my sexy Nicky is not worthy of you looking at him?!

My words are my words, how you choose to interpret them is your own issue. 

[bignick]

1 hour ago, spike382 said:

Whatever helps you sleep at night, sweetie. 

Great! Now you're going to stare at me the whole night. 

59 minutes ago, spike382 said:

And what would those be!

You're smart, you're sexy, you're kind... No, wait! This is Gary's list. 

[spike382]

22 minutes ago, bignick said:

Great! Now you're going to stare at me the whole night.

And what’s wrong with that? 👀

23 minutes ago, bignick said:

You're smart, you're sexy, you're kind

Gary and I have the same list, Nicky. 

[bignick]

57 minutes ago, spike382 said:

And what’s wrong with that? 👀

58 minutes ago, spike382 said:

Gary and I have the same list, Nicky. 

[dughlas]

4 hours ago, spike382 said:

Done.  Never actually started. 

 

 

BoomBoom says this kind of stuff too and expects us to believe it.

[dughlas]

4 hours ago, Headstall said:

I had a lovely walk. The sun isn't shining, but it's mild and breezy. I can smell spring.  

Glad you could enjoy some time in nature.

[dughlas]

3 hours ago, spike382 said:

Whatever helps you sleep at night, sweetie. 

I'm rather certain that pondering your issues doesn't help any of us sleep at night ... nor does your mentally undressing innocents frogs.

Edited March 20, 2025 by dughlas

[dughlas]

2 hours ago, spike382 said:

My words are my words, how you choose to interpret them is your own issue. 

That sounds like a sound bite from the Ministry of Drewth.

[dughlas]

1 hour ago, spike382 said:

And what’s wrong with that? 👀

1 hour ago, spike382 said:

Gary and I have the same list, Nicky. 

[spike382]

7 minutes ago, dughlas said:

I'm rather certain that pondering your issues doesn't help any of us sleep at night ... nor does your mentally undressing innocents frogs.

That wasn't addressed to you. 

[dughlas]

1 minute ago, spike382 said:

That wasn't addressed to you. 

And that's supposed to prevent me from expressing my $.03. 

[spike382]

13 minutes ago, dughlas said:

BoomBoom says this kind of stuff too and expects us to believe it.

And what does that have to do with anything?

[spike382]

6 minutes ago, dughlas said:

And that's supposed to prevent me from expressing my $.03. 

  ... Yes?

[spike382]

32 minutes ago, dughlas said:

That sounds like a sound bite from the Ministry of Drewth.

It's a statement of fact. My words were plain English, there was no implication of anything else, but how anyone chooses to read into someone else's words is their own prerogative.  Doesn't mean I have to validate how they chose to spin what I said. 

Edited March 20, 2025 by spike382

[bignick]

5 minutes ago, dughlas said:

And that's supposed to prevent me from expressing my $.03. 

You have unlimited credit. 

13 minutes ago, spike382 said:

You were saying... 

How could you! 

[Drew Espinosa]

6 hours ago, dughlas said:

Oh, and just ignore the petty Texan. And yes BoomBoom I 'm referring to Spike. 

[dughlas]

50 minutes ago, spike382 said:

And what does that have to do with anything?

Have you crossed over to the Dorkside?

[spike382]

Just now, dughlas said:

Have you crossed over to the Dorkside?

What Drew does or doesn't do has no bearing on what I do or do not do.  We're two separate people. 

[dughlas]

54 minutes ago, spike382 said:

It's a statement of fact. My words were plain English, there was no implication of anything else, but how anyone chooses to read into someone else's words is their own prerogative.  Doesn't mean I have to validate how they chose to spin what I said. 

Perhaps but you were addressing Clo and English is not her first language. Additionally, you stated earlier that you could perve on cute guys. However, you don't want to look at imaginary naked Nick. So intended implication or not there is the suggestion that Nick might not be cute and therefore not worth looking at. Her query for clarity is valid. Just because you don't like the question doesn't remove the onus on you.

[dughlas]

42 minutes ago, Drew Espinosa said:

Manipulative little bugger you are.

[spike382]

9 minutes ago, dughlas said:

However, you don't want to look at imaginary naked Nick.

All I said is I wasn't doing what I was being accused of. 

10 minutes ago, dughlas said:

So intended implication

Intended by who?

[spike382]

12 minutes ago, dughlas said:

Perhaps but you were addressing Clo

Also no, that statement wasn't a reply to Clo, it was a reply to Nick.

You all like to jump in at once, but it doesn't mean I replying to all of you at the same time.  

[dughlas]

16 minutes ago, spike382 said:

What Drew does or doesn't do has no bearing on what I do or do not do.  We're two separate people. 

Never said you weren't separate entities. What I implied was that you were responding in a similiar manner.

I would also suggest your opening statement is not entirely factual. There is very clear evidence the when the teeny little emperor starts sipping from the Fountain of Drewth and embarks on one of his numerous river cruises his postings evoke a response, often numerous responses on your part. So what he does has a bearing on what you do. Which is usually his sole purpose.

[dughlas]

12 minutes ago, spike382 said:

Intended by who?

I'm using simple English here ... intended by you. That's why I said you may not have intended the implication that Clo picked up on.

12 minutes ago, spike382 said:

Also no, that statement wasn't a reply to Clo, it was a reply to Nick.

You all like to jump in at once, but it doesn't mean I replying to all of you at the same time.  

Uhm, dude. Scroll to the top of page 5186 and you'll see you very clearly replied to Clo's post. 

[spike382]

4 minutes ago, dughlas said:

I would also suggest your opening statement is not entirely factual. There is very clear evidence the when the teeny little emperor starts sipping from the Fountain of Drewth and embarks on one of his numerous river cruises his postings evoke a response, often numerous responses on your part. So what he does has a bearing on what you do. Which is usually his sole purpose.

Drew and I get into arguments on here.  He might "evoke" a response, but that still has nothing to do with you telling me he makes statements "like mine."  

Again I made a plain, factual statement that I wasn't doing something I was being accused of, what Drew says or doesn't say in one of arguments had absolutely nothing to do with that statement.  

That "original statement" was my response to Nick.