I want you to present the full quote and not a select section that changes the implicit meaning. Your entire aim, and everybody's entire aim, is to present facts and arguments to diminish the credibility of players. The people with the lowest credibility are not town members, no? I am disappointed in your lack of logic, but that reinforces me vote for you.
Correctamundo! To be honest with you I was all aboard the lynch Statham train and planned to do it for most of the day but Sigourney's general, well everything annoyed me to the point where I had enough and wanted to push her trout in. Mission accomplished.And the saving of Statham seemed to be based more on giving the middle finger to Weaver than any care about Statham.![]()
This is the full, relevant quote. As Daniel Craig mentioned before, he does not want to target people who are mostly inactive, but rather, the ones who are coasting by and are almost inactive. They are two very different things, but I am not surprised a meat head such as yourself cannot comprehend it. Poor show, Vin Diesel. Go back to filming the next Fast and Furious movie because that is all you're good for.
No no no Harrison, you're not getting out of this one so easy, you told me to diminish someone else's credibility. I'm not letting you get away with this.
Anyway, to rebut your point:So what you're saying is that Daniel Craig said he does not want to target people who are mostly inactive. Correct?
...
which is exactly what I said. The "almost quiet" jibber jabber -is totally irrelevant. Why?You'll note he doesn't say the "almost quiet" Vin. Nope, straight up quiet Vin, the most inactive player in the game up until today. So because it's an irrelevant detail to the point I was making, that's why I left it out.Originally Posted by Daniel Craig OH NO I DIDN'T QUOTE THE WHOLE POST LOOK OUT WORLD
Oh, and I liked your snide little attempts at taking shots at my intelligence though. Good job! I will rate them a B+, if only for the irony that you just made yourself look... uh... well. You tried. God loves a trier, doesn't he?
or rather
let's say almost inactives are turkeys and totes inactives are mongolians
daniel craig says turkeys are bad and we should look out for them, but pursuing mongolians is a terrible strategy
he later says, hey, should we get that mongolian vin diesel
vin diesel is confused. why does daniel craig say we should leave mongolians alone, but then later says we should consider going after vin diesel for being a mongolian? because turkeys have smurf all to do with anything, vin diesel, proud mongolian, leaves that part out. there are no more turkeys to be found.
harrison ford, confused that there are no turkeys to be found in Vin's version of events and lots of them to be found in Daniel's, posts bunch of inane words, doesn't make much sense with aforementioned inane words, and then ORDERS VIN DIESEL TO DIMINISH SOMEONE ELSE'S CREDIBILITY god DAMNIT
who do you want me to diminish, harrison
who is it you are scheming against
YOU VILLAIN
I did not order you to diminish his credibility. That is what you were actively trying to do yourself through unethical quoting behavior. I simply told you how to do it properly without making yourself a glaringly obvious scumbag.
I do applaud your attempts to turn this back on me though. Face it, though; you have nothing to go on and you're simply trying to emulate the angry success that Samuel L Jackson has had thus far.
I concede that Daniel Craig's comment does not entirely match his earlier actions, but then neither did Sigourney Weaver's statement that you should not try to live if you are town aligned. Regardless, your behavior is far more interesting than Daniel Craig's.
I am going to keep up this conflict though and try to explain to you in simple language what the components of my post were so that maybe you can learn something from someone who is clearly more intelligent and educated than you are.
...You are definitely quite the character Vin.
Definitely making things quite interesting.
I wish you luck ford. You may need it.
That is a direct order, from you, to me. I'm afraid you can't talk your way out of this one, Ford.Or I noticed a contradiction between another player's previous stated intentions and his intentions today and decided to ask a question. You'll note I did not say "Daniel Craig is scum and you should lynch him".That is what you were actively trying to do yourself"Unethical quoting behavior". Precious. See, there's a little flaw with your theory. How did you find out about that secret quote I tried so desperately hard to conceal? Why, every quote has a link to the original post in context! Why, my plan to destroy Daniel Craig by trimming down his quote to be more concise and remove the irrelevant parts has come unstuck at the first hurdle!through unethical quoting behavior. I simply told you how to do it properly without making yourself a glaringly obvious scumbag.
I'm not turning anything back on you. You are typing wrong things and being very unpleasant about it. I am educating you as to how incredibly wrong and silly you are and having a merry time doing so. But, if I were to turn things back on you, which also sounds like a lark, I like that you are attributing motive to me that is not there.I do applaud your attempts to turn this back on me though.Nothing gets past you, does it? Game's over, guys, I'm throwing in the towel.Face it, though; you have nothing to go on and you're simply trying to emulate the angry success that Samuel L Jackson has had thus far.![]()
Notice, firstly, the phrase "if you wish." This has connotations that directly contradict your claim that it was an order. Strike one.
Notice, secondly, the phrase "and not your own." This implies - although it is rather explicit I should imagine - that the failings mentioned at the start of the post ("Include the entire quote") have not, as you intended, diminished Daniel Craig's credibility, but instead your own. Strike two.
Notice, thirdly, that your name ("Vin Diesel") contains a type of fossil fuel that is contributing to climate change and is a sure-fire scum tell. Strike three.
Again, somebody with a basic understanding of the English language should be able to understand that the relationship between words informs meaning. I am sorry that you seem to struggle with this concept, but you are doing an excellent job of spewing rhetoric and arguing. I expect you would make a master debater if not for the fact the topic is your own dishonesty.