IF you had only listened to me.

In my most recent Republicans implode TL, I added 11 Democratic Senators. I figure that there would have been enough to pass the background check bill.
I assume that Democrats from Arizona and Nevada vote yes. They are not up for reelection until 2018. While the guy who beat Mitch McConnell would probably vote no, red state 2014 reelection, the guy beat Rand Paul who doesn't go before the voters until 2016, votes yes. The guy who beat Mark Kirk votes yes as does the guy who beat Arlen Specter in 2004 and won reelection in 2010. Since he replaced the co sponsor of the bill,he is a wash. Senator Norton and the other Washington DC Senators support the bill. I don't know much about the gun culture in Puerto Rico, so I assumed those two Senators vote yes. That makes the score 62 yes and 46 no. That is just the enough to break a filibuster in a 104 member senate.
 

Japhy

Banned
I am really looking forward to Japhy's response to this.

Just because I disagree with you Paul does not mean that you should be an ass.

You've been like this all the way since Othertimelines.com, plenty of people have tried to help you over the years, give you advice, make suggestions, help you move towards a direction of actually creating real timelines, not just one shot, three paragraph, unedited, self-aggrandizing works. You have rejected and belittled and most of all ignored us for years years. Yet for some reason I kept going figuring that at least questioning, and critiquing these posts you claim are some sort of timeline, you might get interested in actually producing something of some value.

Because lets be honest, even the wish-fulfillment you seem to want to Emulate those works --- to go back to Othertimelines, Alternia and Different Worlds, and the rest --- "Mike P" or "Uncle Mike" used to post, even when they were absolutely ridiculous, political mastabatory timelines with pathetically little contact with reality, held some value because at least Mike put effort into them, and on occasion raised valid points. You could do that too if you put the effort in.

Instead you keep posting new threads every time a political event happens you don't like and further your little fantasy without putting any effort in, and then expecting praise for something that in fact is not a timeline in any sense of the word, and then when someone dare point out that you are wrong, not for your politics but because the project is sloppy, half-assed and implausible you scoff and now mock at the start.

Sod off Paul. Actually create something or just shut it, I for one am tired and not interested at all in this crap.
 
Just because I disagree with you Paul does not mean that you should be an ass.

You've been like this all the way since Othertimelines.com, plenty of people have tried to help you over the years, give you advice, make suggestions, help you move towards a direction of actually creating real timelines, not just one shot, three paragraph, unedited, self-aggrandizing works. You have rejected and belittled and most of all ignored us for years years. Yet for some reason I kept going figuring that at least questioning, and critiquing these posts you claim are some sort of timeline, you might get interested in actually producing something of some value.

Because lets be honest, even the wish-fulfillment you seem to want to Emulate those works --- to go back to Othertimelines, Alternia and Different Worlds, and the rest --- "Mike P" or "Uncle Mike" used to post, even when they were absolutely ridiculous, political mastabatory timelines with pathetically little contact with reality, held some value because at least Mike put effort into them, and on occasion raised valid points. You could do that too if you put the effort in.

Instead you keep posting new threads every time a political event happens you don't like and further your little fantasy without putting any effort in, and then expecting praise for something that in fact is not a timeline in any sense of the word, and then when someone dare point out that you are wrong, not for your politics but because the project is sloppy, half-assed and implausible you scoff and now mock at the start.

Sod off Paul. Actually create something or just shut it, I for one am tired and not interested at all in this crap.

Hmm.....overly critical much, Japhy? I hate to say this, but if you really, really, disagree with his scenario so much, come up with your own when you have the time. Otherwise, I respectfully suggest you take your complaints elsewhere. (Also, how is Paul being an "ass" here? All he did was just post something, it's not like he went and called people names or attacked anyone or anything here. Sheesh....:rolleyes:)

In my most recent Republicans implode TL, I added 11 Democratic Senators. I figure that there would have been enough to pass the background check bill.
I assume that Democrats from Arizona and Nevada vote yes. They are not up for reelection until 2018. While the guy who beat Mitch McConnell would probably vote no, red state 2014 reelection, the guy beat Rand Paul who doesn't go before the voters until 2016, votes yes. The guy who beat Mark Kirk votes yes as does the guy who beat Arlen Specter in 2004 and won reelection in 2010. Since he replaced the co sponsor of the bill,he is a wash. Senator Norton and the other Washington DC Senators support the bill. I don't know much about the gun culture in Puerto Rico, so I assumed those two Senators vote yes. That makes the score 62 yes and 46 no. That is just the enough to break a filibuster in a 104 member senate.

Got any links, Paul? I'd like to see what you've come up with(or, if nothing in TL form, just send me a PM of draft material, notes, etc. whenever you've got the time. I can try to help you if you'd like. :)).
 

Rex Mundi

Banned
Hmm.....overly critical much, Japhy? I hate to say this, but if you really, really, disagree with his scenario so much, come up with your own when you have the time. Otherwise, I respectfully suggest you take your complaints elsewhere.

This is not a valid point/statement/anything. If he disagrees with somebody's scenario, he should be allowed to say so; he does not need to come up with his own timeline in order to criticize somebody else's. If I don't like Twilight, I can say as much, and nobody expects me to write my own vampire novel for tweens to somehow validate my opinion.

And where else should he take his complaints? He's criticizing an idea for a TL; the thread in which the idea was proposed is the only valid place to level criticisms against it.
 
This is not a valid point/statement/anything. If he disagrees with somebody's scenario, he should be allowed to say so; he does not need to come up with his own timeline in order to criticize somebody else's. If I don't like Twilight, I can say as much, and nobody expects me to write my own vampire novel for tweens to somehow validate my opinion.

And where else should he take his complaints? He's criticizing an idea for a TL; the thread in which the idea was proposed is the only valid place to level criticisms against it.

Normally, yes, but he went way too far with the criticism; that's the problem.....
 

d32123

Banned
Japhy, why do you even bother trying to offer criticism for his work, since he obviously isn't responding to it? I agree that your criticisms are usually valid, but after all these years shouldn't you just say screw it and let Paul do his thing since he's going to do it anyway?
 
Ooh a new episode of Paul vs Japhy is on!

tumblr_inline_mjwsh5DFq71qz4rgp.gif
 
Japhy, why do you even bother trying to offer criticism for his work, since he obviously isn't responding to it? I agree that your criticisms are usually valid, but after all these years shouldn't you just say screw it and let Paul do his thing since he's going to do it anyway?

Maybe a mod should lock this thread before it spins outta control, huh?
 
This. Seriously, what? Is Paul complaining that OTL doesn't follow his TL?

I've no idea, but this is a bizarre thread. I'll have to be charitable and assume that Paul is addressing someone on the board who he had a prior argument with. But if so, that's the kind of thing which is better confined to PMs.
 
Top