hp [leaves] wrote:My post on M_K's case
.....
Post 122: Admits he's scum?
No.
hp [leaves] wrote:Post 131: (Intended) misinterpretation.
... What the hell are you talking about? Explain yourself!
hp [leaves] wrote:Post 161: Admitting he's scummy by answering all of Falmeaxe's questions "yes".
... Wrong. Completely wrong, especially since there were no questions.
hp [leaves] wrote:Post 181: Defending himself by joking around.
Post 217: Still joking around and OMGUS'ing OGML.
... Next time you give an argument, get your facts straight and don't you
dare
put words into my mouth.
I was serious in those two posts... even though I was laughing around the end of Post 217.
Setanta wrote:Mk wrote:RC) Both mentalities are merely opinion; Null because you did "it" before and "it" being a scumtell. Sure many people share the second thought, but then that makes it merely popular opinion.
So basically if everyone agrees it's scummy it doesn't matter as it's just a popular opinion? Surely this could be used to defend any action? basically you can respond with "No wai" to anything said citing it as popular opinion, not fact.
Maybe I'm not understanding you correctly here but this is what I'm getting out of this point. Please calarify if I am taking this the wrong way.
I think you got the basic point right: If everyone agrees [some action] is scummy, it's merely popular opinion, like any one "scumtell" is merely opinion.
The "It doesn't matter" part of your statement is strange. Popular opinion gets people lynched, so it kinda does matter... but only in that regard. Persuasion is a mighty powerful part of this game... but does a lynch prove a opinion right? I don't think so. Like I said:
Microphone_Kirby wrote:I think there's no truly 100% reliable scum-tell other than admitting s/he's scum.
... since it's usually Townies getting lynched for showing such "scum-tells".
... Yes, one
could
use the opinion card as a defense... but that would be a
very
weak defense, wouldn't it?
OhGodMyLife wrote:M_K: Please explain why tunnel vision is scummy.
Tunnel Vision alone? It's counter-productive, but that's about it. Alone, it's weak.
But in your case, your also trying to rush a lynch along when there's plenty of time left and you're not even
trying
to build
your own case you've started
; other people were building your case for you. It's good enough for me to vote you.
raider8169 wrote:DrippingGoofball wrote:Santos wrote:Yes, I am semi-lurking, but I am not hesitating to post; I just don't have much to add at the moment as most of the discussion usually works itself out. I'm in no hurry to lynch anyone: If a decision needs to be made, then I don't mind being the deciding vote...
Yeah.
Admits to lurking but calls it 'semi' lurking. Says he doesn't have much to add, but waits by the sidelines for discussions to 'work themselves out' without input from him, whatever he means by 'discussions working themselves out.'
However, this wimp who has, by his own admission, little to say, is willing to hammer.
He's waiting for the discussion to work itself out, ie,
get to lynch minus one
. Right? That's the gist of it.
And when we're at lynch minus one, whoever is being lynched, he's willing to hammer. It doesn't matter who. As long as it's not him.
He's just Mr. Silent-Semilurker-Hammer. When we need a hammer, he'll be there. But not for anything else. For anything but the hammer, count him out. He just doesn't have much to say.
I'm sorry folks but this is scum all the way.
unvote, vote: Santos
I never read it that way but it does make sense.
I would like a response from him before I add my vote.
Ditto. What do you have to say to DGB's accusation, Mr. Silent-Semilurker-Hammer?