And yet you're the only one who didn't see it coming.

Apparently. My bad for sure.

Thanks for confirming that you have no clue about what is going on in my post, Im not going to spend 40 posts explaining it though.

Thank god

You want to poll the audience and see who believes me and who believes you? I'm pretty confident on how that'd turn out.

Ok so I'm still not seeing a point or something that merits a response. So?

LOL again, maybe too much credit. SJWs have never said that every decision is right? What sort of inane strawman did you skim for here to get that.

P.S. You mean one case. One case. Right? You got upset at me saying "numerous"! I don't understand how you thread a needle between "some of these cases" and "numerous cases", but I think where we're going to end up is one case, the CSU one.

No, but I think it might have provoked you to slink back to a more appropriate forum for your garbage opinions. Instead here we are, you just ruining the thread with aggressively disclaiming the very CONCEPT of having a point, retreating eventually to you disagreeing with Wookie or whoever about the CSU case. But that's not how it started! It started when Melky thought he was gonna show them SJWs.

Everyone knows you were on some MRA "bitches be lying" grand point and you're backtracking from that because your big gotcha fell flat. Transparent, son.

(emphasis mine)
Just a quick recap to show how full of **** Melkerson is about this just being a reasonable disagreement about the disciplinary situation of a single CSU student(who wasn't expelled!), with no broader point intended.

LOL at making a big deal about NOT EXPELLED, just until the woman graduates however long that is. GTFOOH

Doesn't make it any more true.


So you're saying your statement was wrong.


Obviously I never said SJWs would think every decision is right. You even quoted me saying exactly that in your very next post. Seriously, man, read more and imagine less.

Nope. We both know that there is no number of cases that would satisfy you, so what's the point. If I mention another, you're like "OK, so you've got just two. Wow!,"


Like I said, you can believe what you want to believe, but when I've explicitly posted the exact opposite of "bitches be lying", I don't know how you conclude that I believe the opposite. Well, I do. It's that vivid imagination of yours.

Also there's no retreating. I've been consistent throughout. You think I'm saying things I never did. If trying to explain to you what you're not getting is retreating, that's kind of a weird definition.

So are you now admitting that you were mistaken here? Now that goofy and I were kind enough to engage you with more respect than you deserve and explain the reality you were too lazy to learn about yourself?

So we're good?

Cool. Go back to SMP.

100% of cases in this thread is different than 100% of cases.

Out of curiousity, in which ones did you find the punishment objectionable.

Like I said, the gambit you're trying here is impossible because the pose is just too obvious, but you're so lazy about trying it.


Like this. Come on, you think I'm going to do your ****ing homework for you, starting listing cases because lol you can't name examples? You're the dip**** who blundered in here all hot and bothered about the misandry of the SJWs. You want to retcon this into you having a point, you're gonna have to do that your damn self.

Like I said. You're just arguing against the fantasy Melkerson in your head. You're certainly doing a great job with that.

LOL. So it's OK for you to request examples, but not me.

You literally came in here explicitly to white knight for ikes against the SJWs lol, how did you expect this to turn out any other way?

What's the track record of you doing that? This ain't the first time. Probably not even the first time in this thread. When is it Melky's turn to be the good logic boy? When it is Melky's turn to have basic familiarity with the facts?

But again, because of my magnanimous nature,

Ignoring the goalpost shift here as the sort of casual intellectual dishonesty SMP encourages and addressing the initial claim, #teamNotIkes was OK with the CSU guy not being expelled.

For Christ's sake, walked right into that one, didn't you?

Calling him a terrible poster itt makes me a pretty awesome white knight. Is failing at that good or bad for me? And how about for fantasy Melkerson.

Or am I lying about that too, just like I'm lying about my belief that women rarely make false rape accusations.

Wait, so you would have objected to his being expelled?

Well you're the one who keeps lying and saying that the student was expelled. So stop lying?

But... what?

Say the answer was "yes". Are you saying that when you said

The "100% of cases" was the CSU case hypothetically changed to the guy being expelled, and #teamNotIkes was ME, IN THE FUTURE?

Melkerson you might need to invent some new verb tenses and clarify your pluralization standards if that's what you mean.

What I was saying was that as far as I was aware with respect to all of the cases in this thread, you and like minded folks would be OK with expulsion. In some cases you may have wanted expulsion and additional punishment.

I used expulsion there because it was the proposed punishment in my hypothetical.

I know he wasn't actually expelled. But given what the punishment was I'd find it pretty weird for someone to say indefinite suspension (i.e. until she graduates) is OK but expulsion would have been wrong. I felt that was a fairly small assumption on my part.

Just because, you are OK with suspension for several years doesn't mean that you're also not OK with expulsion. Unless you actually aren't. And if you aren't, then yes, I was mistaken.

By which, again, you mean the CSU case but with one important fact changed? Pluralization and verb tense, dude. They matter.

Because what it seems like ikes goal in this thread was to me was to relentlessly whine about the misandry of the SJW college administrations and also the federal government instituting an anti-male discrimination standard. You apparently disagree, but in a way that you can't articulate right now.

And what's so weird about this is that, well, back when we talked about the Occidental case for the 4th or so time you were a little more upfront about agreeing with ikes on that:
But now you're still just as touchy about SJWs being mean to Sweet Prince Ikes for his rape apologia, but you're not even willing to sack up and actually accuse people of the hypocrisy you clearly believe they hold.

Well, not just that one. I was applying the hypothetical proposal to the cases in the thread.

I've never not been up front about agreeing with ikes that a lot of these results are bad results. Once again, I've said this numerous times.

I guess in your mind it is impossible to have the slightest bit of agreement with the guy and not be some sort of white knight.

The problem here is this serious fiction in your head that you literally can't turn off. Apparently when some people make a post (I'm not the only one), you've got this narrative in your head well if X said this, then he must mean all these other things. It would not be that bad, if that's all it was. But you augment this with the bizarre motives of what one poster thinks of another or how someone is white-knighting for someone. No amount of denial will get you off the delusion.

For example, earlier you claimed that chezlaw was white-knighting for me or taking a bullet for some such because I was his buddy from SMP. Of course, I literally almost never post in SMP and hardly read it. In fact, without checking I don't think I have even have responded to a single post of his over there or vice versa. Of course, none of this is going to prevent you from agresssively proceeding with this drama that is entirely in your head. So, carry on, I guess.

Again, to clarify, you mean one of these results, hypothetically?