Wasn't that the question I was asking?

Isn't it sad when two people have to parrot each other just to get a simple fact across?

Well then where is the person on third?

Are you telling me we have a gap in our infield defense?

In agreeing with you wouldn't I be perpetuating that?

Ninja'd by WORK!!

Who did they trade for Gap and what base does he play?

Wouldn't the process of elimination leave Gap on third?

Wasn't where on third?

When was where on third?

Didn't I place where on third earlier?

If you did, why didn't you put it in the playbook so we could all reference it?

Wasn't why supposed to be taking care of the book-keeping?

Why would you leave a drunk like why in charge of the books?

Who doesn't like a little bit of leeway in the books?

Where is who and why is he off of first?

...Who is with my wife?

Wait, where is your wife?

If my wife is where, than how can she be who or what I thought she was?

.....wasn't who on first?

Wouldn't you rather know Who she'll be with, Today or Tomorrow?

Is that actually better than figuring out who is with her or if she is where?

So what you're saying is where was sleeping with who on first?

So wait, where was settling for who's sloppy seconds?

Didn't we give up on trying to get Krylo in here?

Is Here even attracted to Krylo?

*ba-dum-CHA*

Who isn't?

isn't that question a little in the general direction?

Haven't you been paying attention to the last forty or so posts?

What Doc might've meant to say is; isn't that more of a statement seeing as who Who is?

Who is who again?

Who is this Title™?
 

Who is the man on First Base?

If you know, why are you asking?

Wasn't why taking care of the book-keeping?

Can't we get anyone else to do the books until why gets his act together?

Who would be better at book-keeping than why?

If who's doing the books, then who's on first?

Didn't you just say you wanted who doing book-keeping though?

Do we really need the books done while the game is going on?

Then who will keep track of scores of statistics?

How can he do that if he's on first?

So are you suggesting who should be on first and how do book-keeping?

Well, do you have any other ideas?

If we find out why who was with where instead of on first, then couldn't we finally figure out how to fit them in with what when it's appropriate?

So if we could get who, where, and what together, that would solve the problems of both fielding and bookkeeping?

Well if who is on first, what is on second, and where is on third then why don't we have a pitcher and how about the outfield?

If we never had a pitcher, why were we prioritizing on finding a first baseman?

Do you think it's because why can't get his priorities straight?

Has why's alcoholism really affected the entire organization so much?

Well if why can't pitch and book-keep at the same time, isn't that reason enough to turn into an alcoholic?

Couldn't it just mean why was trying to do too much, and should have asked for an assistant?

Then who would be his assistant?

Wouldn't giving who two jobs just lead back to the same problems we've been experiencing with why?

If who is sleeping with where then she should be able to keep who in line, right?

It depends - was anyone sleeping with why?

Given that I haven't been paying attention to this thread at all, did the current topic come about as a result of an Abbott & Costello reference?

Would it be more accurate to say just the last hundred posts were a result of said reference?

Why didn't you just tell him to stop being a lazy-ass and read the damn posts?

Wouldn't that have been unnecessarily rude?

As rude as someone interrupting a conversation asking for a recap because they're too lazy to look?

Can it really be called a conversation when the replies are up to an hour apart?

The fact that every word is logged and ready for reference in order to be picked up at any time has no bearing?

Isn't it more of a correspondence, then, compared to an actual conversation?

Is one more acceptable to interrupt and request a recounting on than the other, seeing as the train of correspondence or flow of the conversation is disrupted either way?

Wouldn't a correspondence such as this be the better to interrupt, since it is open for any and all to participate in?

Why would it, when the idea is to participate, not tell everybody "STOP! What is this we're talking about here?", especially considering the entire course is conveniently available for him to look back on in order for him to actively participate?

As true as that may be, aren't there better ways to get people to look back at what has happened without having to resort to profanities and other childish name calling?

Would you take the reaction of "why should I" and "why should I care" as an appropriate rebuttal?

Are all my efforts to bring decorum and class to the thread doomed to failure, then?

have you been makeing efforts to bring decorum and class to the forum?

Isn't that the implication you would draw from his post?

Couldnt he just be saying that as a humourous statement and not actually have been doing said action?

What does that have to do with misunderstanding the implications of his post?

Were you not paying attention to what was just said?

Can you really say anything with a question?

Wait, what are we talking about now?

Can we really have any meaningful and memorable conversations between a Moogle, a clown, an angry/insane clown, and an angry ape?

What if we added someone else?

Like a short Ed?

Or a complete nerd?

Are you volunteering?

Even if he was, would it stop you from clowning around?