In post 219, TMTOLBTWNTOF wrote:Yates. So you think that asking the mason partner to claim is a reasonable request, as per your #200.
Also per my 200...
In post 200, Yates wrote:At first
I didn't like the idea
of masons claiming.
Upon further reflection
...
Then per 208:
In post 208, Yates wrote:This is probably the better argument for not revealing.
Good call.
Here's the order of events:
- I didn't think masons should claim and thought it was stupid when I placed my vote on you in 187.
- It took further reflection and post 198 [which comes after 187] to have me rethinking my position.
- I then state my updated opinion in post 200
- Broseidon's 202 puts into words what had been rattling around in the back of my mind.
- I make post 208 which states that I'm back to being opposed to masons claiming.
Here's the summary:
You partially quote my post 200, misrep my position, and ignore my updated position clearly stated in post 208 in your 219 post.
Yeah. I'm content with my vote on you. I'll worry about my two other scum suspects [cooldog and JMO] tomorrow.
PE: gorkat is not in my Town pile either, fwiw.