In post 376, DVa wrote:Honestly i was starting to reconsider my read until mila kunis. How can you seem townie sometimes but also post so much garbage?
Well the last time it worked in his favor and was probably just due to being used to games like thatIn post 384, Tommy wrote:I'm conflicted. Saudade now seems to be trying to sort people. But I find it hard to believe he'd genuinely get the number of scum wrong twice in a row after it had already come up.
They don’t seem genuine to me.In post 374, DVa wrote:@Doughboy what do you think of these recent posts by Saudade? he was re-evaluating reads and it kinda seemed a little townie but idk, then he went right back to fluffposting
Who was it directed towards then? If I'm lying you should be able to tell us who it was directed at.In post 398, GuerillaWoo wrote:I'm just mulling over this exchange rn. I honestly don't know if he's lying or not here. Like I think he genuinely doesn't understand that it wasn't directed at him, but I dunno, he could just be saving face. Like he knew he was lying earlier and now he's trying to play up the VI card? Does that make sense?
I dunno. UNVOTE: for now. Like if he were scum, what would the point be in in blatantly drawing attention to himself with these big VI gestures? If I were to assume he were scum this would be a very public and risky gambit play.
Although it's not like I haven't seen bigger gambits, I've used the VI routine myself, and AS TOWN.
Legit don't know what to think here. Is he really not seeing it? How? Is anyone else here reading that post up there the way he is?
If Guerilla won't specify it, and if you can see it, you can say it right Tommy. Who was Guerilla referring to in post 99, when he referred to lingering in the background.
You don't think it's possible he's faking the blindness?
Saudade you wanna tell him who I was referring toIn post 405, LTVNGambit wrote:If Guerilla won't specify it, and if you can see it, you can say it right Tommy. Who was Guerilla referring to in post 99, when he referred to lingering in the background.
Yeah.This makes it seem as if you want to start a wagon, and jump on at the end due to the unvoting.
Actually, you say everyone else understood, only you and Tommy have said you know.In post 407, GuerillaWoo wrote:Saudade you wanna tell him who I was referring toIn post 405, LTVNGambit wrote:If Guerilla won't specify it, and if you can see it, you can say it right Tommy. Who was Guerilla referring to in post 99, when he referred to lingering in the background.
This can't be real. If it's pretend it's pushing believability.
Lemme ask you this, Gambit, who is quoted over the part where I supposedly accused you of lurking
Like here's the thing. I can buy that you misread it. Hell, maybe, just maybe, I can buy that you misread it then pushed this hard on it and refused to admit your mistake.
You know why it's possible for me to believe that? Because I quoted Saudade and spoke in the third person.
But the fact that this has become such an issue for you, and the fact that everyone else understood me, has actually let me come to one important conclusion:
You're bullshitting.
Here's why. You're still going on about this. Your entire argument for me being a liar is hinged on this being believed. But here's where you fucked up: it's very clear from the context who it's in reference to. Saudade and I had an argument over that post.My bringing up policy lynches became an issue.
This is important because you read this exchange. I know you read and understood that exchange because you accused us of bussing one another. Meaning you knew we had that disagreement over anti-town policy lynches.
Here's the other important part: everyone else understood, because people talked about it. You're the only one.
So this very important part of your argument: you didn't think to double check? You didn't think to read the context? And now you're asking me who it's in reference to even though I fucking told you who on the last page???? You're gonna pretend now that the issue is I just never informed you? That I never explained?
I'm not giving you that out. You wanna cop to saying something dumb, you do that yourself and don't use me for it. But that's not what you're doing here. Because you know you're reaching. Because this isn't your only lie. Remember this gem?
Yeah.This makes it seem as if you want to start a wagon, and jump on at the end due to the unvoting.
VOTE: LTVNGambit
Come on? You want to prove to everybody I was lying right. Well. Considering we don't have evidence that everyone agrees with you, state who you referred to. Let them see if they were right.In post 409, LTVNGambit wrote:Actually, you say everyone else understood, only you and Tommy have said you know.In post 407, GuerillaWoo wrote:Saudade you wanna tell him who I was referring toIn post 405, LTVNGambit wrote:If Guerilla won't specify it, and if you can see it, you can say it right Tommy. Who was Guerilla referring to in post 99, when he referred to lingering in the background.
This can't be real. If it's pretend it's pushing believability.
Lemme ask you this, Gambit, who is quoted over the part where I supposedly accused you of lurking
Like here's the thing. I can buy that you misread it. Hell, maybe, just maybe, I can buy that you misread it then pushed this hard on it and refused to admit your mistake.
You know why it's possible for me to believe that? Because I quoted Saudade and spoke in the third person.
But the fact that this has become such an issue for you, and the fact that everyone else understood me, has actually let me come to one important conclusion:
You're bullshitting.
Here's why. You're still going on about this. Your entire argument for me being a liar is hinged on this being believed. But here's where you fucked up: it's very clear from the context who it's in reference to. Saudade and I had an argument over that post.My bringing up policy lynches became an issue.
This is important because you read this exchange. I know you read and understood that exchange because you accused us of bussing one another. Meaning you knew we had that disagreement over anti-town policy lynches.
Here's the other important part: everyone else understood, because people talked about it. You're the only one.
So this very important part of your argument: you didn't think to double check? You didn't think to read the context? And now you're asking me who it's in reference to even though I fucking told you who on the last page???? You're gonna pretend now that the issue is I just never informed you? That I never explained?
I'm not giving you that out. You wanna cop to saying something dumb, you do that yourself and don't use me for it. But that's not what you're doing here. Because you know you're reaching. Because this isn't your only lie. Remember this gem?
Yeah.This makes it seem as if you want to start a wagon, and jump on at the end due to the unvoting.
VOTE: LTVNGambit
Go on, put the icing on the cake yourself. Who were you referring to? Or are you just going to go along with what somebody else says?
In post 92, GuerillaWoo wrote:Actually having reread the thread, and despite honestlyhaving zero issues with a Saudade lynchon D1, this is where my vote belongs
VOTE: LTVNGambit
He was talking about Saudade. Not you.In post 99, GuerillaWoo wrote:Came in and voted Saudade then left. Think that was his only game related post. There's another user who hasn't come in at all afaik but I'm guessing the kick will catch him instead. I'd rather get people contributing rn tbhIn post 95, Tommy wrote:GuerillaWoo, why LTVNGambit?
Gamma Emerald, do you think Saudade's posts are coming from town?
Yeah, again, not a single issue if y'all wanna lynch this guy. Don't care if he's scum or not. If he's scum he's just gonna linger in the background doing this shit, and if he's town he's just gonna linger in the background doing this shit. LameSaudade wrote:Good vote though, you win games on this website often?
Meant to include this part to, which is the origin of the “linger in the background” sentiment.In post 47, GuerillaWoo wrote:Saudade is... strange. VOTE: Saudade 2irony4me. Hasn't really chimed in even when prompted, quadruple posting, essentially gave a non-answer with that short story collection. Can't tell if scummy or just annoying. Guess we'll find out what the price is for voting for him second?
I SAID IT ON THE LAST PAGE HOLY SHITIn post 389, GuerillaWoo wrote:I was talking about Saudade's anti-town play. Holy fucking shit.
The issue is I was town reading you until I made the realization just now: you're not trying to convince anyone. You have very much maintained a low profile on pushing me other than just calling me scum.In post 419, Alchemist21 wrote:I was never even scumreading you for the joke and it’s a misrep to say I was. And there’s been more reasons since then. The only people you could fool into thinking there isn’t a case on you are people who haven’t read.
