Am I just at fault?

Recommended Videos

Abomination

New member
Dec 17, 2012
2,939
0
0
Dijkstra said:
Abomination said:
The OP has caused no harm, he has simply been an agent of the girlfriend's infidelity ? it was she who has done any real potential harm. But for damage to pride only to be responded with damage of a physical nature when we are BETTER than this is saddening. It is not that I do not believe us to be subject to animal instincts but the fact we can identify them but allow them to rule us still shows just how little sentience some of us truly have.
He participated in it. He aided it. He has helped someone cause harm. He is guilty as well. He's in the position a tool would be in, except he has a choice.
So if he did not know the girl was in a relationship he would be just as guilty? If no then from a practical standpoint he has done nothing wrong. He is under no obligation to the boyfriend, he has cheated on nobody. The girlfriend however...

Temporary satisfaction or vindication taken in spite of long-term consequence... vengeance directed at the wrong party and applied in excess of the slight.
No, it's the right party.
He is the one deserving of physical punishment? First, he broke no oath, second the female was the one who decided to betray the boyfriend. But I guess since she's a woman she can't possibly be subjected to physical punishment for a worse crime.

People have made posts about how depressed they are with humanity because of those who would view the OP as not having done much wrong. I find the idea that violence is a suitable punishment for a moral slight to be the true measure as to how deranged our society has become.
Is that some kind of joke? History lessons much?
Yeah, history, something we have tried to become more enlightened than. You would think after a few hundred years, law changes and philosophical debate we would realise that violence should be the last resort and even then only employed to prevent further violence. What we are suggesting is that it is okay to commit a REAL crime in response to a moral one?
 

Twilight_guy

Sight, Sound, and Mind
Nov 24, 2008
7,131
0
0
If you know she has a boyfriend, you're cheating. You're just as guilty as her. It takes two to tango and the only reason an issue exists is because you both let it happen and share equally in the blame. If you want to be together tell her to drop the other guy. If he is a douche then that's reason enough to do it anyways.

Of course you already knew that. People only ask if they are to blame when they feel guilty and they feel guilty because they know they did something wrong. I'm not going to reassure you, I'm going to reenforce what you know to be true.
 

Shock and Awe

Winter is Coming
Sep 6, 2008
4,647
0
0
Unless you enticed her your fault is basically just limited to enabling her. You have no obligations to this guy (unless hes your friend, in that case you're horrible) so you are not at fault for her failings.
 

Kurt Cristal

New member
Mar 31, 2010
438
0
0
Dijkstra said:
Kurt Cristal said:
I personally believe that the cheater is at fault, not the cheatee. It's the cheater's choice to cheat.
Cheating and rape are very different things. The person they cheat with also makes a choice to help someone do something immoral, thereby making them quite immoral as well.
Rape was NOT involved in the OPs post, so I don't know why you brought it up. And no, choosing to make someone feel good in bed is not immoral. Only cheating is, and that's just me. You're only doing wrong if you're cheating.
 

Bocaj2000

New member
Sep 10, 2008
1,082
0
0
If you are ignorant to her relationship, then it's okay. But the very second you find out that she has a boyfriend, you are at fault. At that point, you're both sneaking around behind her boyfriend's back, not just her.
 

PrinceOfShapeir

New member
Mar 27, 2011
1,849
0
0
You're basically hurting someone for the sake of your own personal pleasure. Both of you are. It's not like you're ignorant, so yeah, there's no excuse for your behavior.
 

Arcane Azmadi

New member
Jan 23, 2009
1,232
0
0
If you believe that cheating is wrong, then you're at fault, even though you're not the one cheating. Ask yourself- would you be upset if your girlfriend had a "friends with benefits" relationship with someone else while she was going out with you? If the answer is "yes", then you're a hypocrite.

And if he's such a douchebag to her, why is she still going out with him? Are you sure you're not just making excuses for yourself?
 

Vegosiux

New member
May 18, 2011
4,381
0
0
SimpleThunda said:
If that's how you see the world, who am I to stop you? I'd very much appreciate it if you stopped with the "cynical and edgy" act though (and no, "Loathing humanity for what it is" is not what "Cynical and edgy" means). But discussing opinions is like discussing wallpaper.

Poke me again when we have some facts backed up by some solid sources to talk about.
 

Abomination

New member
Dec 17, 2012
2,939
0
0
Dijkstra said:
By this logic, if I pull a lever to kill someone then I'm not at fault. Because you know, if I didn't know if it would kill someone I wouldn't be guilty. Or in the real world, knowledge matters. From a practical standpoint you are wrong.

He has the obligation not to be immoral. Alas, helping someone else be immoral is immoral.
No, you would be guilty of murder if it was your intention to kill someone but the agent, the device you use - the lever in this case - would not be. The OP is that very lever. He is the agent in the girlfriend's "crime". It isn't possible for her to cheat on her boyfriend without an agent and an agent can not cause someone to be cuckolded without a willing spouse. In this case the OP is both the agent of AND the ?crime? taking place.

I said he is the right party, I never specified magnitude.

Secondly, fuck oaths.
Third, to help betray someone else is wrong.
Lastly, who said she couldn't be punished too? But I guess since a guy got punished you have to cry discrimination when nothing was said about the female.
No, he is entirely the wrong party for any punishment, especially if he is the party being mentioned for punishment FIRST. The girlfriend should be the one who is punished first as she was the one who betrayed, not the OP.

Second, fuck oaths? What do you mean? We should simply not honour any arrangement we make with another person? No deals or promises to be kept? If that's the case then the girlfriend has done NOTHING wrong at all and she should sleep with whoever she likes when she's already in a relationship.

Which brings us to the third point, apparently the moral obligation is simply on who she sleeps with? Because, as you said ?fuck oaths? right?

Lastly, when discussing punishment for an act one would figure the primary culprit's would be discussed first. But I understand people in these forums not wanting to say "I would knock you out if I was in the boyfriend's shoes - AFTER I give her a worse beating." because that would just go down SO well.

If you're trying to be enlightened, why the hell are you missing the point so badly? 'how deranged our society has become' implies it's changed to be more deranged. It hasn't.

Furthermore, 'real' crime is BS. It is arbitrarily defined. Who cares if the law says it's a crime or not? That's not what makes it bad.
So... assault is fine provided it is in revenge for a disgrace of honour? Does that mean if a woman insults me I get to rape her? Because hell, rape is essentially just assault with penis involved. Or does including penis suddenly make it far worse than any other thing you can do to someone? "Please hit me all you want, beat me within an inch of my life, just don't slap me with your dick!"

THAT is the absurdity. Rape is terrible but assault is fine and dandy if you slept with a girl who had a boyfriend.

Violence is violence and it is either ALL unacceptable or none of it is. Sleeping with someone else's significant other isn't illegal for several reasons: nobody owns anyone else - the boyfriend has NO command over his girlfriend's vagina, he only commands if they are not in a relationship; sex isn't illegal when both parties are consenting.

The blame is squarely on the girlfriend's shoulders.
 

Vegosiux

New member
May 18, 2011
4,381
0
0
Abomination said:
So... assault is fine provided it is in revenge for a disgrace of honour? Does that mean if a woman insults me I get to rape her? Because hell, rape is essentially just assault with penis involved. Or does including penis suddenly make it far worse than any other thing you can do to someone? "Please hit me all you want, beat me within an inch of my life, just don't slap me with your dick!"
No, it simply means that law dictates what is or isn't a crime, but there not being any law doesn't suddenly make things okay. If there's no law that outlaws murder, then murder isn't a crime. But that doesn't mean murder is just fine and dandy, it's still a rather bad thing to do. "Crime" is a legal term. It's defined as "breaking a law". It doesn't mean "doing a bad thing".

At least that's what I gathered from his post.
 

smithy_2045

New member
Jan 30, 2008
2,561
0
0
Yoshi4507 said:
So, I'm currently seeing this girl quite often. Friends with benefits thing. Its amazing, dont get me wrong. The only problem though is that she has a boyfriend. To make it better, we are all coworkers. Luckily he doesnt know, but has suspicion. I know she is in the wrong for doing it, but whats bugging me is " how wrong am I in comparison"? At the moment all I can think of is I, m not the one cheating, she is, hes a real d-bag to her anyway, and me always coming to that conclusion is whats bothering me. Whos more wrong?
What you should do is start a friends with benefits thing with her boyfriend as well.
 

Abomination

New member
Dec 17, 2012
2,939
0
0
Vegosiux said:
Abomination said:
So... assault is fine provided it is in revenge for a disgrace of honour? Does that mean if a woman insults me I get to rape her? Because hell, rape is essentially just assault with penis involved. Or does including penis suddenly make it far worse than any other thing you can do to someone? "Please hit me all you want, beat me within an inch of my life, just don't slap me with your dick!"
No, it simply means that law dictates what is or isn't a crime, but there not being any law doesn't suddenly make things okay. If there's no law that outlaws murder, then murder isn't a crime. But that doesn't mean murder is just fine and dandy, it's still a rather bad thing to do. "Crime" is a legal term. It's defined as "breaking a law". It doesn't mean "doing a bad thing".

At least that's what I gathered from his post.
The thing is the violence aspect has been... excused or even "deserving". I find it strange that society will condemn an act of violence in one instance but encourage it the next, especially in a situation where the person the violence would be directed at did no more than fulfill a spouse's desire for affection and adventure.

The OP slept with her, but SHE cheated on the boyfriend... but the OP receives scorn? I suppose it is a feeling of being threatened or insecurity that one could encourage their spouse to leave them so easily. The anger isn't really at the agent but at themselves for being bested in an area they had deemed themselves the master.
 

game-lover

New member
Dec 1, 2010
1,447
1
0
Abomination said:
The thing is the violence aspect has been... excused or even "deserving". I find it strange that society will condemn an act of violence in one instance but encourage it the next, especially in a situation where the person the violence would be directed at did no more than fulfill a spouse's desire for affection and adventure.

The OP slept with her, but SHE cheated on the boyfriend... but the OP receives scorn? I suppose it is a feeling of being threatened or insecurity that one could encourage their spouse to leave them so easily. The anger isn't really at the agent but at themselves for being bested in an area they had deemed themselves the master.
If it means anything, I give them both my scorn. She's an obvious slut. (I call all unfaithful females, sluts, FYI) And he's the guy who succumbed to the slut.

Also, I'm all for types of consequences that don't have to be illegal at all. If his company has a rule about fraternizing with coworkers, a nice chat with HR can probably do wonders. Especially if they have those moral clauses that can be popular.

But as far as the accepting violence aspect... this is probably because doing such a thing can and often is considered to be an emotional/mental assault. The OP did more than just "fulfill a spouse's desire for affection and adventure." He enabled something that's so much worse than a regular lie. Hell, they're coworkers. You wanna bet how much lying and deceiving they had to do to keep this from the boyfriend? This kind of shit fucks people up.

You might be right about the anger towards themselves about having a spouse that doesn't value them when they were so sure it was the opposite. But make no mistake, the anger is about the agent too. In my opinion, anyone who chooses to be an agent is pretty much saying they have no respect for relationship sanctity. They don't respect relationships of anyone at all. And that makes them terrible people.

SHE wouldn't have been able to cheat on the boyfriend--at least not in this specific instance--if the OP hadn't decided it'd be a good idea to sleep with her. Maybe it would have been someone else in the future. But for present time, that could have been avoided if maybe the OP had just shut her down. Or not pursued her. However it got started. So that's on him.

Now that being said, I don't exactly condone the violence. They deserve consequences but maybe not those. Like I said, I'd rather do something longer lasting like ruining someone's reputation in the boyfriend's place. Both hers and the agent's. But I do accept it as a probable consequence. And honestly, I'm not gonna feel any sympathy.
 

Abomination

New member
Dec 17, 2012
2,939
0
0
game-lover said:
Also, I'm all for types of consequences that don't have to be illegal at all. If his company has a rule about fraternizing with coworkers, a nice chat with HR can probably do wonders. Especially if they have those moral clauses that can be popular.
Well, the boyfriend also works at the location and the issue wouldn't have arisen if he wasn't already engaged in the exact same activity he will be tattling the other two parties on. I think he'll be told "and this is why you don't do it in the first place, you're all wrong, nut up or shut up".

But as far as the accepting violence aspect... this is probably because doing such a thing can and often is considered to be an emotional/mental assault.
Certainly not by the OP. Assault implies intent. I am certain the OP didn't do it to hurt the boyfriend, he did it because he doesn't CARE about the boyfriend's opinion. And there is a difference between the two. For it to be assault the parties must have done it with the direct intention of causing the boyfriend harm. If THAT was the case then yes, the OP is a jerk.
The OP did more than just "fulfill a spouse's desire for affection and adventure." He enabled something that's so much worse than a regular lie. Hell, they're coworkers. You wanna bet how much lying and deceiving they had to do to keep this from the boyfriend? This kind of shit fucks people up.
I would say he was entitled to lie for a coworker is not privy to his other coworkers' bedroom antics. I am certain the OP just wanted to get his load off and that's all there is to it from his end. The girlfriend was simply a willing and attractive agent of HIS desire.

But make no mistake, the anger is about the agent too. In my opinion, anyone who chooses to be an agent is pretty much saying they have no respect for relationship sanctity. They don't respect relationships of anyone at all. And that makes them terrible people.
Having been an agent and a cuckolded party I can assure you I very much respect the sanctity of relationships - MY relationships. The relationships of others are not my concern in the least unless I have an obligation or interest otherwise. My one-night-stand's relationship situation is not my responsibility or affair. She makes the decision to cheat, not me. I am not about to force a moral decision upon another person as that goes completely against my own code of ethics.

SHE wouldn't have been able to cheat on the boyfriend--at least not in this specific instance--if the OP hadn't decided it'd be a good idea to sleep with her. Maybe it would have been someone else in the future. But for present time, that could have been avoided if maybe the OP had just shut her down. Or not pursued her. However it got started. So that's on him.
Could have, yes, but it wasn't the OP's responsibility to do so. As always, it was the girlfriend's. The OP is under no obligation to assist her in upholding her fidelity.

Now that being said, I don't exactly condone the violence. They deserve consequences but maybe not those. Like I said, I'd rather do something longer lasting like ruining someone's reputation in the boyfriend's place. Both hers and the agent's. But I do accept it as a probable consequence. And honestly, I'm not gonna feel any sympathy.
If their reputation is made public that's as far as I would ever go in terms of "punishment". I find punishing others for moral "crimes" to be even more dastardly than anything the "criminal" could have possibly done.
 

Strazdas

Robots will replace your job
May 28, 2011
8,407
0
0
Oh my, what have i started :D

SimpleThunda said:
YOU're a rat. Be a man, tell the guy what's up. Face the consequences, but atleast be a man.
It is physically impossible for a human to become a rat.
He does not have to tell anyone anything, it is none of his business.

Vegosiux said:
As Katatori pointed out, I didn't clarify myself, but I'm looking at the situation from the practical point of view, rather than the moral one. And that's why I think what the OP is doing is "wrong". Not because it'd be "immoral", but because it just goes against all practical consideration.
oh, so your point of view is not "i think its wrong" but "society thinks its wrong therefore i have no choice to but agree"

The fourth would be that there are just so many women he could hit it off with without putting himself into such a situation in the first place.
No. you dont know that. maybe this is the only woman he will ever be able to get in his whole life (extragarating ofc). This is as good as an excuse as "i dont like salad becuase its raining".

And the fifth? The fact that the OP seems to have doubts himself, and actively seeking validation. That alone should raise a red flag. "Wait, I'm not even sure if I should be doing this, so why am I still doing this?"
he seems different opinions, which is commendable, and is instead met with rage and condemnation. how appropriate.
SimpleThunda said:
Look at the world. Does violence serve no purpose? Hell, the world resolves around violence. Violence to get more money, thus power. And whenever we're not actively killing people, we'll be "violent" in others ways, agressive, if you will, without being physical. We'll use money instead of our fists to get what we want out of someone. Or words. Bribery, intimidation. It's all means to the same end as violence.
the fact that you are presenting this as a bad thing already proves you are trying to be better. so your fail your own logic here.

Johnny Impact said:
Crime existed before there were laws. The very first time one caveman slapped another and stole his meat, there was no written code drafted by stuffy legislators. There was only the notion of right and wrong.
No. the notion was "i dont like what you did by stealing my meat". there was no right or wrong notions. wrong or right formed with the jugdical system (not nevessarely laws, a shaman could have been judge jury and executioner all at once). But if you look deep enough everything is a "like" or "dislike".

For a crime to exist, all we need is a victim, a perpetrator, and some sort of unfair loss inflicted by one upon the other. The victim is the one being cheated on, who was treated unfairly. The perpetrator is the one doing the cheating, who took unfair advantage of another. The loss in trust, dignity, time, happiness etc might be intangible but it is no less real.

That's all criteria satisfied. Cheating is a crime, a violation in terms of morality rather than legal technicality.
But the victim does not exist without definition of a crime. the caveman who lsot his meet was not a victim. victims did not exist back then. maybe his loss was fair and maybe his own moral code said that him being slapped is good? it all depends on perspective. We do not know morality of the female in question therefore we do not know whether she violated it or not.

Is that the ending you're looking for? Do you feel at that point as if the guy who set the whole thing up has done right by you?
That is a risk you have accepted when you went on to follow the map. Treasure maps are great example, because this situation would happen in real life too. You equally accept a risk, when you get into a relationship, that another person may be a liar.

Or we could use sexual harassment as an example. Here we have two people who should get along, extending, if not friendship, then at least the quid pro quo attitude most humans have towards one another. Except one of them is taking what isn't offered, abusing trust, abusing authority, taking advantage of meek complacency, and so forth. There isn't any notion of fairness towards the victim. There isn't any quo or quid. There is only callous greed: "I want this, I'm taking it, ha ha, you can't stop me." Theft of dignity, theft of personal space, emotional damage -- however you categorize it, it is very much an intangible, and very much illegal. This is a crime on both moral and legal grounds.
it could be my lack of english expression knowledge, but i really did not udnerstand what you were tryign to say here.

You can apply the same sort of logic to relationships: I love you, and I give you the right to love me in return, or at least cordially decline my love. I do NOT explicitly or implicitly give you the right to sink a pickaxe into my heart by pretending to love me while you fuck some other guy behind my back.
oh, seriuosly, were back to square one of sex = love?

Don't people in relationships have some claim on each other? Don't they deserve anything for their devotion?
no they do nto have any claim on eachother. they do not "deserve" anything for their devotion. their devition is a charity that they do to reach certain goal - emotional satisfaction.

doesn't that mean you believe there is no requirement to be decent, or repay trust in kind? We can just do whatever we want, without consequence, because hey, you don't own me.
requirement? no.
Posibility of concensus? certainly.

Cheating and rape are very different things. The person they cheat with also makes a choice to help someone do something immoral, thereby making them quite immoral as well.
no. The cheree makes a choice to hace sex with a woman, which in no way ties to her current friendship status. The faul does not extend to the person.

He participated in it. He aided it. He has helped someone cause harm. He is guilty as well. He's in the position a tool would be in, except he has a choice.
how have he Aided it? sleeping with a woman that has a boyfriend is aiding her in cheating as much as me not killnig thos guy next door is aiding in him robbing a bank 5 years from now.

By this logic, if I pull a lever to kill someone then I'm not at fault. Because you know, if I didn't know if it would kill someone I wouldn't be guilty. Or in the real world, knowledge matters. From a practical standpoint you are wrong.

He has the obligation not to be immoral. Alas, helping someone else be immoral is immoral.
He is not pulling a lever that automatically makes her a cheater. She is doing that by chosing to have sex while pretending not to. He has no obligation to be moral as morals are subjective.

Secondly, fuck oaths.
Third, to help betray someone else is wrong.
Lastly, who said she couldn't be punished too? But I guess since a guy got punished you have to cry discrimination when nothing was said about the female.
if you say fuck oaths, then noone is at fault. Oath is the ONLY thing that makes her in the wrong. He is not "helping her betray", she did it all on her own. it was her choice and her choice alone.

Bocaj2000 said:
If you are ignorant to her relationship, then it's okay. But the very second you find out that she has a boyfriend, you are at fault. At that point, you're both sneaking around behind her boyfriend's back, not just her.
so as long as your stupid its ok and as soon as you gain knowledge it somehow magically starts to become bad? what has changed physically? nothing. then why does youer judgement changes?

If it's any consolation I'm equally if not more disgusted with your post.
well, at least your honest, even if wrong.

game-lover said:
If his company has a rule about fraternizing with coworkers, a nice chat with HR can probably do wonders. Especially if they have those moral clauses that can be popular.
wikipedia said:
Fraternization is "turning people into brothers"?conducting social relations with people who are actually unrelated and/or of a different class (especially those with whom one works) as though they were siblings, family members, personal friends or lovers.
Im sorry, i dont really follow.

game-lover said:
But as far as the accepting violence aspect... this is probably because doing such a thing can and often is considered to be an emotional/mental assault. The OP did more than just "fulfill a spouse's desire for affection and adventure." He enabled something that's so much worse than a regular lie. Hell, they're coworkers. You wanna bet how much lying and deceiving they had to do to keep this from the boyfriend? This kind of shit fucks people up.
Erm, No. He commited no mental assault. He did just fulfill the girls wishes and NOTHING MORE. one has to remember that this is a "Friends with benefits" situation, so it is JUST SEX. He was an instrument in the girls unfaithfulness, which does not put the blame on him. Coworkers or not, has nothing to do with it.

But make no mistake, the anger is about the agent too. In my opinion, anyone who chooses to be an agent is pretty much saying they have no respect for relationship sanctity. They don't respect relationships of anyone at all. And that makes them terrible people.
Whoa, so relationships are somehow saint now and anyone that does not see relationship as "owning the woman" is terrible person?

SHE wouldn't have been able to cheat on the boyfriend--at least not in this specific instance--if the OP hadn't decided it'd be a good idea to sleep with her.
and i woulnt be able to be stabbed if knives were banned. lets ban knives because its obviuosly their fault some punk decided to stab me (true story btw).
 

Spinozaad

New member
Jun 16, 2008
1,107
0
0
Dijkstra said:
Spinozaad said:
She's the one in a (less than) committed relationship.

You're not responsible for her personal life.
Nope, but he is responsible for his choice to help someone.

I'm not sure what this crap is about pointing out things he isn't responsible for when what's relevant if anything he is responsible for is wrong. But I'm quite certain we're all smart enough to understand why this deflection occurs.
Is he "responsible to help someone"?

She's in a relationship with some other dude. He's single. She's sexin' him. It's not his job to feel guilty for her slippin'.

The moral question for the OP would be along the lines of: "do I feel comfortable sexin' someone who's cheating on her partner to sex me?"

If that's a resounding yes, he's absolved of any blame/guilt/whatever. If that's a no, he should break it off.
 

Vegosiux

New member
May 18, 2011
4,381
0
0
Strazdas said:
Vegosiux said:
As Katatori pointed out, I didn't clarify myself, but I'm looking at the situation from the practical point of view, rather than the moral one. And that's why I think what the OP is doing is "wrong". Not because it'd be "immoral", but because it just goes against all practical consideration.
oh, so your point of view is not "i think its wrong" but "society thinks its wrong therefore i have no choice to but agree"
No, that is not my point of view, however much you wish it was, but that's your problem.

Quit strawmanning. If you want a discussion with me, the first thing you're going to do is stop putting words in my mouth.

The fourth would be that there are just so many women he could hit it off with without putting himself into such a situation in the first place.
No. you dont know that. maybe this is the only woman he will ever be able to get in his whole life (extragarating ofc). This is as good as an excuse as "i dont like salad becuase its raining".
Well, if we go by what we do or don't know, none of us actually know that the OP post is a true story in the first place.

And the fifth? The fact that the OP seems to have doubts himself, and actively seeking validation. That alone should raise a red flag. "Wait, I'm not even sure if I should be doing this, so why am I still doing this?"
he seems different opinions, which is commendable, and is instead met with rage and condemnation. how appropriate.
I seem to be of a different opinion than you, and you meet that with condemnation. How appropriate.

Almost as appropriate as cherry-picking. Or loaded statements (such as "Oh, so you think that...*something completely different from what I said*"). Yeah, seriously. You're not the first person to try and pull that shit on me, seriously. Nor the last.
 

Strazdas

Robots will replace your job
May 28, 2011
8,407
0
0
Vegosiux said:
No, that is not my point of view, however much you wish it was, but that's your problem.

Quit strawmanning. If you want a discussion with me, the first thing you're going to do is stop putting words in my mouth.
Then why do you present your point of view like that?

Well, if we go by what we do or don't know, none of us actually know that the OP post is a true story in the first place.
That is irrelevant. We could be discussing this as a hypothetical situation and it would change nothing. If it does, your a hypocrite.

I seem to be of a different opinion than you, and you meet that with condemnation. How appropriate.
No, just disappointment.

Almost as appropriate as cherry-picking. Or loaded statements (such as "Oh, so you think that...*something completely different from what I said*"). Yeah, seriously. You're not the first person to try and pull that shit on me, seriously. Nor the last.
Maybe you should make your statements more clear then.
As you can see, im pretty much responding to all people, and that takes a lot of time, you cant really blame for for cherry-picking.