Wordle 1,345 4/6*
⬛⬛⬛⬛🟨
⬛⬛🟨⬛⬛
⬛🟨⬛🟩⬛
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
Humorous?
My guesses, in order, create the phrase "suave chewy-boned otter", and I think you all need that information.
lemonmelon
joined 1 month ago
It's a meta post, you didn't mark it as such. Nothing more, nothing less. If I thought the post should be removed, I would have reported it for removal. The metatude (It's a word now. I invented it. Probably after someone else already did, but they're not here, are they?) of the post is noteworthy, so I noted it. You could have done already, and still can even now.
Nobody is suggesting this "magical immunity" you've referenced. This smacks of shitstirring, which has its place, but in this case looks reactionary. My previous assessment stands.
Spoiler Discussion
Pedantically speaking, the process is called jellying, so the clue would need to be [JELLY] not [JAM] for that grouping to work. The real kicker is that blue wouldn't work with any of the remaining clues, unless you consider [PICKLE] a breakfast topping.
Huh, going down that line of thought, one could make the argument that blue would still work in that combination, albeit as sandwich toppings instead of breakfast: [PICKLE] [HOT SAUCE] [BUTTER] [SYRUP]. Before anyone calls foul on [SYRUP] for this grouping, it goes on Monte Cristos and chicken & waffle sandwiches. This one might be the closest argument I've seen for an alternate solution. The previous pedantry proves pivotal for properly parrying the proposed protest.
Connections
Puzzle #623
🟪🟪🟪🟪
🟦🟦🟦🟦
🟩🟩🟩🟩
🟨🟨🟨🟨
(Y)DI + this is an unmarked [META] post + no admin action was taken against the account + history of behavior + it looks silly to make a wholeass new thread after getting cratered to oblivion in the original one
Phil's "mistake", if we're insisting there is one, was not approaching the account-hopper with "You post a lot, and most of it is questionable trash. Please don't shovel shit from this instance anymore if you want to remain."
Goddamn, Phil, I didn't know you roasted coffee.
Strands #356
“Here we (don't) go again”
🟡🔵🔵🔵
🔵
Wordle 1,344 3/6*
⬛⬛🟩⬛⬛
⬛🟩🟩🟨⬛
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
I'm not confused: you made a post about a post, discussing matters brought up in the post, after getting dumpstered by downvotes in the post you subsequently made a post about. If that's not meta, then it better not have kids with meta or we'll end up with the Habsburgs all over again. You seem to have a blind spot with regards to how that comes across, which is fair.
If you intended to simply be informative, you lost the plot by titling your thread as you did. I'd consider that an honest mistake if you hadn't avoided any mention of the other thread and your involvement in it. It's in bad faith, and it's a bad look.