?In post 399, skitter30 wrote:i'm p sure that if my read on you was 'null' you'd be unsatisfied as well, no?
"null" is boring but understandable. why did you even say this...?
?In post 399, skitter30 wrote:i'm p sure that if my read on you was 'null' you'd be unsatisfied as well, no?
?In post 398, Datisi wrote:like "null" is a category that exist and that i'm pretty sure you've heard of? so i don't get why you're saying that "if you don't think i should be townreading you here then what's the problem with me scumreading you" as if those are the only two ways you can read a post and as if laws of the universe say that you *have* to have one of those reads on someone
Who else is town to you at this point?In post 402, PookyTheMagicalBear wrote:I would sure hate to be eaten by a tiger
good thing im town af
i'm trying to say that in 397 you're going: if "i don't think you ought to be townreading me" then "you don't see how you being suspicious of me is a problem". you're basically implying that, because i said that i don't think there are good (objective) reasons to townread me right now, that i couldn't find scumreads on myself a problem.In post 401, skitter30 wrote:?In post 398, Datisi wrote:like "null" is a category that exist and that i'm pretty sure you've heard of? so i don't get why you're saying that "if you don't think i should be townreading you here then what's the problem with me scumreading you" as if those are the only two ways you can read a post and as if laws of the universe say that you *have* to have one of those reads on someone
what are you trying to say with this
Hmm.In post 405, skitter30 wrote:ok sure i can understand your objection in the first paragraph. i disagree that the natural conclusion is that i ought to be null-reading you, which is what you seem to be implying you expect of me here instead
i think we're going around in circles tho, we don't really have to quibble semantics
i still find your read on me unsatisfactory, and you believe i may or may not be making up reasons to scumread you basically is where we're at i think
dats do u really want to continue quibbling semantics because from my pov you're twisting a lot of things that i said in this first paragraph and if you want me to break it down i can but i feel like we're going around in circlesIn post 407, Datisi wrote:i don't think you "ought" to be nullreading me, i just think you cannot be calling me out for finding scumreads on myself problematic on the grounds of"well you said you weren't being townie"
like if you had a super strong scumread on me but if was backed by reasons i found satisfactory, i wouldn't have a problem with you here
i agree we're arguing semantics but the problem is that my suspicion on you is very semantics-based ._.
that would be funIn post 414, Vulture wrote:This game is going to have a stupid team like Skitter/Pooky
i just don't see the pointIn post 416, Vulture wrote:Perhaps some of that is that, it feels opportunistic to back down from the "argument" here that they're having (from Skitter's side) when there is a bit of questioning on her now. I think in an ideal world though I should play safe and say we don't let either of Skitter/Datisi pair because it feels like the sort of fight where it's T/S but I'm not sure enough on my townread to go "yes pair please."
Of what point? There's two in there.In post 418, skitter30 wrote:i just don't see the pointIn post 416, Vulture wrote:Perhaps some of that is that, it feels opportunistic to back down from the "argument" here that they're having (from Skitter's side) when there is a bit of questioning on her now. I think in an ideal world though I should play safe and say we don't let either of Skitter/Datisi pair because it feels like the sort of fight where it's T/S but I'm not sure enough on my townread to go "yes pair please."
In post 407, Datisi wrote:"well you said you weren't being townie"
these are not at all the same thing ?In post 397, skitter30 wrote:like unless you think i ought to be townreading you here i'm not sure how me being suspicious of you is a problem
the semantics is kinda getting very mired and confusing and i'm not sure what the point is of arguing it since:In post 419, Vulture wrote:Of what point? There's two in there.