This is discussion archived from a time before the current discussion method was installed.
Kilyle: I'm sure there's a Red Dwarf example for this trope (maybe more than one), but I just can't think of it. Does Quarantine count?
Seth: I would say so, following the guidelines exactly to screw them over.
Quote: "In Death Note, there is a nasty rule that causes you to lose your memory if you lose your Death Note. Light, of course, twists this to suit his purposes, erasing his memory after shuffling the Notes around so that, when he regained his memory, he would have several enemies in checkmate at once (see Xanatos Roulette)." What does this mean? —Document N
Mith: Rather than "what does this mean?" I would ask "why is this here?" Taking it out for now.
Man Without A Body: I fleshed out the Harry Potter example, as only contained the Exact Words themselves, and neither of the contexts. If anybody wants to change my wording, though, go for it.
Robin Zimm: Does this FreakAngels episode
qualify, or is this a different trope?
- Connor: You threw an empty water canteen at her from a hundred feet up?KK: No, of course I didn’t. I threw a full one.
Chocolatepot: Deleted:
- In The Pirates of Penzance Mabel gets a bit too Genera Savvy about this and after making her love promise that he'll be faithful until their wedding day repeats it, adding "and ever after".
Daibhid C: Is it just me, or are there two tropes here fighting for dominance? There's the version described in the first paragraph of the description: "After attempting to establish rules or policies weighted in his favor, a character gets his come-uppance and learns An Aesop when the other characters twist those same rules against him", and then there's saying something that is factually accurate, but deceptive. Should these be split? (If so, I personally favour the latter being Exact Words, although I can't think of a title for the former.)
Ronfar: In that scene in The Dark Knight, where the Joker sets the money on fire, I was under the impression that the Joker really was being honest with the mobsters, and that the rest of the money - the mobster's share - was elsewhere; he was just making a statement that he was only in it For the Evulz and that getting paid didn't matter. Other people on this wiki have said that "his half" was the bottom half, and that the mobsters lost everything. Which is right?
