>>3035611>all this text for an apron Stella
Jesus.>If you consider just being intentionally provocative for the sake of it banter but not the response to it that is a complete double standard>The only thing you do better is having a shitty attitude that doesn't belong on /c/
This is not banter, it is claiming Stella apron is against the boards rules. No double standard there, because what you first replied is literally not banter.>Its also hypocritical of you
There is literally nothing wrong with being a hypocrite.>of you to be taking this so far
You keep prolonging an argument from a dogmatic position that doesn't actually exist. You were the one to engage and you are mistakingly believing I have any interest in arguing.>while calling Lisefags touchy when you apparently can't handle what you dish out
This is you building a strawman and attacking that. I have no problems with Lise and you have nothing to stand on besides claiming I do. I didn't "dish out" anything, I responded to a Lise post with another attractive women and you did what I said, exploded to the perceived insult.>Don't be so mad just because not everyone wants to play with you in that way, and don't be so mad when they do.
Irrelevant. I have no reason to be mad and you have no reason to believe otherwise except to create a position of that which does not exist.>Clearly responding to you with any connotation but excessive positivity is a mistake, is what you're telling me.
Yes, that seems to be the case. You want to argue very badly and my interest in doing so wanes with each sentence of inane content I have to read for posting Stella in an apron.
Reply when you are able to make a statement that is not only board-friendly, but is actually relevant to the discussion at hand. You "lost" this "argument" as soon as you created my position for me. I really wish I didn't have to argue on /c/ but sometimes things don't go the way you want. Your anger is clouding your rationality.