Wow. Are you this transparent? You didn't bring it up? Are you sure about that?
Let's rewind back to how this whole conversation started...
YOU fired the first shot. Not Smile. Not me. You openly began to criticize the way I just wouldn't let go of banning "The Third Option". It wasn't until your post did Smile retort---this is important---he wasn't gunning at you specifically anytime. And it wasn't until smile decided to retort, did you suddenly make it about you. You brought Smile's retort onto yourself by thinking that he was openly criticizing you for no reason when he just meant that just as I am allowed to nitpick and be pretentious about expecting people to make a third option were you also being presumptuously hypocritical about your reputation on this forum.
The disallowing of the Third Option is a very important part of this thread. Look at the poll above you. It is split down the middle. Makes for a more interesting premise as you can really see how the opinion is divided, furthering the point that both answers are thoroughly valid. This invites TONS of debate options and discussions about the grayness of the issue. This is exactly what stimulates the topic of discussion. When I made my rants for Avoiding a Third Option in Cook and Envoy's threads, THEY acknowledged that I was right and was in fact agreeing that they should've clarified because what happened to their threads was the conversation derailed into something else entirely and away from the dichotomy of the decision.
I didn't want that to happen in this thread, and feel that if it came down to it people would still be clueless until they really really thought about it. Ergo, having only 2 choices gives more weight to your choice and more discussion can be had. I've already done something like this in my Christmas thread where I asked if it was about the presents or the people. THAT poll was also interestingly split down the middle despite my initial theories of an idealistic Christmas. But really, I didn't have to explain it then because nobody complained and just answered the poll for what it is, because in the end the intention was plain and there: Greed or Love? And even if people still tried to explain their version of their choice (like a pseudo-third option) at least they put some thought into it and tried to justify themselves. That also adds a bit of dimension to the topic at hand.
So no, Azure. I wasn't warning people not to take a Third Option because I'm anal retentive and have a thing against it. I was basically telling the thread that the third option is beyond the scope of this poll, and if they tried to worm into it I wouldn't be able to solve the fundamental question of this thread. That I wouldn't need to explain all this to you because I thought you understood.
But you don't really care about this tl;dr, do you? Because the moment people called you out, you decided to make it about you once again. How the people perceive your machine modliness is their opinion. Derailing my thread just to claim "victory" is not only childish but unexpected of you as a mod.
Get over it, it was never about you.
To begin, my statement still stands:
I didn't bring it up. My particular thing wasn't brought up by me, it was brought up by Smile, as you quoted. Onto the next point, the name he referred to me as is "gunning at me," as it implies it's still a thing, which it isn't. I wasn't making this about me, I was making a comeback to his post. I'd already made my post in relations to the thread, so replying to his post wouldn't derail unless his post itself was derailing. And saying I derailed the thread when, in the post I made replying to your three I again went to the topic which had new conditions on it (updated OP) I reinforced my answer, is silly.
I'm over it, you seem more bothered about the whole thing, you all made it more about me than I did.
The point of my post was that you had no right no tell someone else to "stop doing their thing" when you recently had your own stupid thing that you didn't stop doing until it reached a hellishly annoying point (actually you're still kind of running it with that "Azure Kite, The Loner" signature). The machine thing was perpetuated by someone else to make fun of you, not a sad self-depreciating joke that went on for too long. The difference here is that the loner thing was fun only for you and was annoying for others, while the machine thing was annoying only for only and fun for others.
As I explained in my reply to Nish, the "The Loner" thing is not related to the invisible/not noticed thing I did, it relates to Azure Kite, the character that my username comes from, who is a lone security protocol for a game called "The World" from the .hack// series.
The irony here is that the fact that you're so concerned about "checkmating" people, means that you still care a whole lot about your image despite attempts to cover it up by what, removing that sig? It was why I pointed it out in the first place. It was a legit observation, not a jab.
I didn't plan to delete it, and the "checkmating" wasn't some image thing, it was just a phrase. The fact it's apparently such a big deal is the biggest shock to me, honestly.