I'm being kicked out by my Chad roommate

Pics or it didn't happen.

Get your shit together Cred Forums, since when do you take bullshit like this at face value, you need to learn some lessons from this guy ?

Pics or it didn’t happen bro

>since when do you take bullshit like this at face value
Since this is Cred Forums.

you wouldn't do shit fagit. lel

tfw millennials can't appreciate anything but trap pictures.

No, I used an early Cred Forums meme with pics or it didn't happen for a reason to point out Cred Forums was always skeptical of this shit in the past.

Tits or gtfo, btw, bitch.

he means Cred Forums has always been on the stupid side, newfag. neither their scepticism, and/or lack of, is surprising.

play it off as purely a prank and not you trying to piss him off.

should have just fought him dumb nigger

are you trying to get him laid?

You didn't surprise, kid. You disappoint.

and here's another example of poor and almost-nonsequitur this board's reading comprehension can be. spent all this time coming with a witty retort, and wound up with one that's too much of a 90-degree turn to logically connect.

No turn or illogical off topic reply at all, it was a straight trajectory from telling you to get your shit together all the way to saying you disappoint.

Sounds like a fantasty you are too afraid to make real

again, here's another time spent coming up with a retort, only to rely on things that aren't related, have decreasing logical connection, and only growing further-and-further off-topic. enough so, that any sense of tangentiality was quickly lost.

Pics or it didn't happen

Then explain this: , because he never made any claims to surprise people. But remarking on how Cred Forums's characteristics aren't a suprise ().

This () had nothing to do with what he's talking about.

Attached: question-marks2.png (394x373, 189K)

You think this is the only thread I am tending to or something like all the time taken in between posts is dedicated just to trying to live up to your standards?
>our conversation is not related to our conversation
OK, boomer. Do you have some old timers memory meds you forgot to take or something?

now here's something a wee-bit different, but not uncommon here. trying to save face and claim they have personal things going on, often as an excuse, while fronting an argument that has decreasing relations to the topic at hand.

>because he never made any claims to surprise people.
Let me be your reading comprehension and explain what happened between the lines.
He implied () that the earlier remarks I made about him needing to get his shit together for believing OP () was because I was surprised at the lack of his skepticism, when I was not surprised at how stupid he was, I was just disappointing that he brought his stupidity to Cred Forums.

>He implied () that the earlier remarks I made about him needing to get his shit together for believing OP
There's nothing in relating to this.
>I was just disappointing that he brought his stupidity to Cred Forums.
That's de rigueur for this board (and Cred Forums in general).

Based OP

>personal things going on
Browsing more than one thread at a time because you understand how tabs work is considered personal things to old boomers?

You don't know the true meaning of sociopath.

Attached: IMG_1170.jpg (693x989, 130K)

and here we go with another common tactic, trying to downplay what's considered personal things; even though that's ironically a boomer stereotype.

Its part of the context of the continuing conversation since those are directly connected in the reply chain and the comment that he was directly complaining about.

>That's de rigueur for this board (and Cred Forums in general).
Yea since around 2016, when you and your kind discovered the board.

And here we have the common tactic of starting an argument, then trying to act like an objective observer of the argument in a poor attempt to build up a small personal army to agree with you ITT.

It wasn't part of the context, and it wasn't even implied. was just additional commentary on board culture, nothing else. There's no explicit proof of anything else being said in that post.

Attached: confused-anime-girl.png (619x619, 294K)

you are all clinically retarded.

and here's another retort that's virtually nonsequitur, and bringing up details unrelated, nor have any preceding context backing them up.

Fuck you the clinic I went to had very high standards. I deserve a recount.

Then what was the context of neither Cred Forums's skepticism and/or lack thereof being surprising if it wasn't referring to needing to get their shit together for believing OP?

And here we have the common tactic of pointing out someone else's common contact in order to ignore the main point of this all. OP is a faggot

Context: OP makes an extraordinary claim.
Further context: the board naively shows either skepticism towards said claim, or (also naively) a lack of skepticism.
Comment ( specifically): not unusual for this board.

>if it wasn't referring to needing to get their shit together
That's a different topic entirely.

Attached: confused-anime-girl2.jpg (1200x675, 105K)

Here is yet another example of faking third party objectivity to appeal to the broader lurkers of the thread without adding anything relevant to the conversation while simultaneous complaining that the conversation is becoming less relevant with each post.

And here we see someone with nothing personal in their life getting extra thirsty and double replying when a reply takes longer than a couple of minutes to manifest.

You skipped several elements of the conversation and misrepresented some with your lazy reading comprehension, bud

>Context: OP makes an extraordinary claim.
Context: Several people accept it before someone asks for evidence
Context: They are told to get their shit together if they took OP seriously without evidence
Context: Guy says not to act surprised that they would do that.
Context: I say I was not surprised, I was disapointed.

>Further context: the board naively shows either skepticism towards said claim
This is a misrepresentation, it is not naive to demand evidence.
>or (also naively) a lack of skepticism.
Again this is what is not surprising, this is disappointing.

>That's a different topic entirely.
No, that is the topic of the post that started your entire retarded incomprehensible critique of misinterpretation.

>Context: Several people accept it before someone asks for evidence
>Context: They are told to get their shit together if they took OP seriously without evidence
>Context: Guy says not to act surprised that they would do that.
>Context: I say I was not surprised, I was disapointed.
Which are, again, typical for site. Plus, these details that were barely relevant, and have little value; and only act as mere additions to a predominating core.
>This is a misrepresentation, it is not naive to demand evidence.
Virtually no evidence was asked for. Most willingly accepted the claim, while one called them out for it.
>Again this is what is not surprising, this is disappointing.
Which is also a point made.
>No, that is the topic of the post that started your entire retarded incomprehensible critique of misinterpretation.
How people have their things together is not, and was not, the topic here. Only their alleged gullibility. Any shifts to having their things together is something else, and moving the goal posts into an off-topic area.

Attached: sexy-cat.jpg (539x529, 81K)

>Context: Several people accept it before someone asks for evidence
>Context: They are told to get their shit together if they took OP seriously without evidence
>Context: Guy says not to act surprised that they would do that.
>Context: I say I was not surprised, I was disapointed.
Nothing about those are relevant to what you guys are talking about. Only that Cred Forums is stupid enough to take things at face value.

>Which are, again, typical for site
Yes, in the last few years, which is your only experience with on this site which is why you are not disappointed that it took so long for someone to ask for evidence, but I am.

>Virtually no evidence was asked for.
Virtually no evidence means one piece of evidence and the only evidence that is needed are pictures, so of course that is what people would ask for first, what is the point of asking for more if even the most basic can't be delivered, dipshit?

>Which is also a point made.
No, he said naivety is a given expectation, while disappointment is specifically a failure of expectations, so he is saying there is no reason to be disappointed, mistaking my disappointment for surprise because he thought I was new, when I am old enough to know a time when skepticism on Cred Forums was the norm and that he is the newfag.

>Only that Cred Forums is stupid enough to take things at face value.
Modern mainstream Cred Forums, the disappointing one, not the fun one of yore that recognized the rules of the internet.

>Be me, 23m college loser in off-campus living.
>Be an awkward fuck with a chad roommate who slays night and day.
>Friend invites me to a hiking trip for the weekend with his 2 pals from his uni.
>Drive all the way up there and hang about town for most of the 1st day.
>Go to bar, meet some locals, talk about mountain life and tourism.
>Meet Big Maria, 22f big and not the good kind, but a 5/10 face.
>Big Maria and her roommates invite us to their after-party.
>I've gotten this far without sperging or dropping spaghetti, must be doing something right.
>Only me and acquaintance #2 agree (I'll call him Pedro)
>Big Maria starts getting handsy now and again, she wants it, but the night is still young.
>Pedro comes up to me at some point and says he's gonna take a nap (??) "Okay sure dude".
>Later in the night, Big Maria invites me to her room.
>Neither of us had had sex in a long time, so we were ferocious.
>Stay up until 5:30 fucking all night. Exchange numbers, tell her I'll text her tomorrow.
>Back at cabin, pass out, wake up, shower, get ready for hike.
>Forgot about Pedro, he walked home by himself.
>The whole hike, he keeps coming up to me and wants to know how I "picked up" Big Maria
>He treated me like a master of the ladies from whom he would learn the art of seduction.
>"She was the one making most of the moves, she was the one that picked me up".
>Eventually leaves me alone.
>That evening I meet up with Big Maria at the bar again, have a few drinks.
>Go back to her place and we fuck again until sunrise, go back to cabin and prep for the last hike
>Pulling hiking clothes out of my duffel bag when I find a PINK PAIR OF PANTIES
>"Wtf are these??"
>Pedro can't contain his laughter, my friend and acquaintance #1 are laughing out of sheer confusion.

Turns out Pedro stole a bunch of Big Maria's roommates panties while he was 'napping' and hid them in my bag when I was out. I ended up finding 4 more panties hidden all over my car, he was so damn proud of himself.

Attached: Link OOT Smug Face.png (366x300, 126K)

>Yes, in the last few years
Cred Forums has always been a bastion of retardation. Even back to the hackers-on-steroids days.
>Virtually no evidence means one piece of evidence and the only evidence that is needed are pictures
"Virtually no evidence" means basically none, but absolutist statements are always horrific ones to make.
>what is the point of asking for more if even the most basic can't be delivered, dipshit?
"The stories and information posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
>No, he said naivety is a given expectation, while disappointment is specifically a failure of expectations
There's nothing in his posts saying such things. Not even in implication.
>so he is saying there is no reason to be disappointed
He'e saying that this is average for this place.
>mistaking my disappointment for surprise because he thought I was new
No proof of making such mistakes.

Attached: crabpuppy.jpg (682x1024, 109K)

>Cred Forums has always been a bastion of retardation.
It had the rules of the internet like #32 that were usually cited immediately to guide it away from this specific kind of retardation, though.

>"Virtually no evidence" means basically none
Then you are clearly misrepresenting again because the evidence demanded by rule 32 was specifically asked for.

>There's nothing in his posts saying such things. Not even in implication.
>neither their scepticism, and/or lack of, is surprising
Then what is surprising referring to and why did I reference it directly in the post that confused and triggered you so much ?
Or did you just fall for that other person's appeal to objectivity and become his personal army general because you have poor enough reading comprehension and enough gullibility to fall for that shit?

>No proof of making such mistakes.
He implied I was acting surprised, why bring up being surprised or not if they didn't think it even applied to the conversation?

>It had the rules of the internet like #32 that were usually cited immediately to guide it away from this specific kind of retardation, though.
Nope, just retardation for the sake of retardation. Blatant idiocy and *chan culture go hand-in-hand like milk and cereal. That's just their main functionality. If you want something else, try reddit.
>Then you are clearly misrepresenting again because the evidence demanded by rule 32 was specifically asked for.
No need. "The stories and information posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
>Then what is surprising referring to
That this type of behaviour/retardation is not surprising. Literally all they said.
>and why did I reference it directly in the post
That's more a problem with you.
>He implied I was acting surprised
He made no such implication. And even if he did, implication is not proof.
>why bring up being surprised or not if they didn't think it even applied to the conversation?
Because they obviously that it was relevant. And because they do whatever they like, say what they want, despite the reason.

Attached: brian-peppers.jpg (400x400, 29K)

All you reddit people coming here and advertising so blatantly all the time is what killed chan culture along with its rules of the internet and brought about so much idiocy, so why don't you go back if you find it so appealing and better than chan culture.

Just because there is a disclaimer mean that all evidence demands are null and void.

>Literally all they said.
No they didn't just say it in a void, they said it in response to the disappointment expressed in my previous post because they thought my disappointment was surprised. Why would you chastise someone for being surprised if you didn't think they were surprised?

>That's more a problem with you.
No, your satisfaction with retardation, poor reading comprehension and inability to understand context is not my problem.

>no such implication
Then why would anyone tell someone they shouldn't have been surprised if they didn't think they were surprised?

> that it was relevant
Exactly, it was relevant since it was directly related to the conversation.

Anyway, your purposeful aloofness is getting old, you keep going in circles and feigning ignorance, so I don't know that you can add anything new from here since you haven't for several posts now.

>No they didn't just say it in a void
They only said this kind of phenomenon is not surprising for this place. And nothing else.
>they said it in response to the disappointment expressed in my previous post because they thought my disappointment was surprised
They made no references to you or your dispositions.
>Why would you chastise someone for being surprised if you didn't think they were surprised?
They didn't, you just interpreted it that way with little explicit or tangible evidence to prove it. And even if they did, they're well within their right to do so as much as everyone else.
>No, your satisfaction with retardation, poor reading comprehension and inability to understand context is not my problem.
How or why you include certain references in your arguments is no one else's problem but yours.
>Then why would anyone tell someone they shouldn't have been surprised if they didn't think they were surprised?
Easy: they didn't. Just remarking about how certain behaviours are simply average for certain places. Not what or how others should act towards them.
>Exactly, it was relevant since it was directly related to the conversation.
Nope, because those involved *thought* it was relevant, and thus proceeded to include it. That's not a hard concept to understand, user.
>Anyway, your purposeful aloofness is getting old, you keep going in circles and feigning ignorance, so I don't know that you can add anything new from here since you haven't for several posts now.
Because these aren't hard ideas for you to understand, user. And acting otherwise is not going to change that.

This argument is more retarded than faggot OP's post. Two triggered ass newfags arguing about how the cite used to be good or not. Cred Forums has always been full of stupid niggers. Figger it out

>because those involved *thought* it was relevant,
Exactly, everyone involved in the conversation understood what they were referencing, then you come along with your poor comprehension and social skills lacking any ability to pick up on context cues compelling you to make dozens of posts repeating your social misunderstandings and outright misrepresentations

>hard ideas for you to understand
You are the one who interrupted a conversation without any clue as to the context without considering the thoughts and ignoring the intentions of the participants in the conversation.