X wrote:I never actually asked Patrick to change his playstyle, anyway. I simply stated that I did not suggest he change his playstyle.
I never said that you started out with the intent to change his play, nor did I mean to suggest at any point you attempted to ask him to change his style of play. What struck me is that you call out his play as scummy/suspicious, he explains its his normal play and that he's not going to change, you decide to embrace his normal play as an acceptable scum tell (by suggesting "I'm just observing - don't change!"). You could have said anything when Patrick suggested this was his normal play (e.g. "Well, I'll keep that in mind," "Well, it seems scummy to me - you should keep that in mind," "Well, I find that to be bogus because X, Y and Z."). But instead, you embraced it - so that by the time you realized that his normal, everyday play would be considered scummy and suspicious to you, you welcomed it ("...wasn't asking you to change" in 91) and supported its continuance ("...why would I want [Patrick] to change [his behavior]?" in 101). Instead of addressing and even acknowledging the fact that his
normal play
was considered "suspicious" and "scummy" to you, you were happy to have him continue on his way in order to pin him later on it.
X wrote:Also, your argument says that I implicitly but intentionally implied that I wanted patrick to be scum under any circumstances. Why would I, as scum, want to say that?
If you can say that Patrick is scummy because of his normal play style, then in any instance you can say that Patrick is scum (because of his play style) and therefore must be lynched (regardless of his alignment). But, I mean: seriously? Are you really asking me this after I just had this conversation with camn?
Have you been paying attention to the thread at all
, scumbag?
X wrote:Ignoring the fact you seem to think gauging reactions is equivilent to throwing shit at a wall...
I find your "gauging reactions" to be "throwing shit at a wall." I don't find all attempts to gauge reactions to be throwing shit. Just yours (for the time being).
X wrote:Your first point has no basis. What reason (disclaimer: in and of itself, ignore this if you're confused) do you have to believe I'm trying to make stuff up when attacking Patrick?
1. Because your point is weak.
2. Because you give little support for your point.
3. Because you're attempting to "gauge Patrick's reaction," and then promptly drop the line of questioning. Which is bullshit. That's like me asking "HEY CAMN! Are you scum?" With a reply of "No! Of course not!" and me going "Oh. Okay. ... Just checking! Thx!"
X wrote:Your second point assumes I know what the results of my investigations would be before I actually performed them.
No it isn't you big fat liar. You give no reasonable explanation why you pulled a 180 after Patrick's response. No follow up question. No explanation. Just: Oh, You're so totally town after I just accused you of being suspicious and scummy! It looks like Patrick could have said "Durr Durr I enjoy eating peanut butter..." and you would have gone "Town!" Your "Town!" response is so contrived, it doesn't matter what Patrick's response could have been - you would have said the exact same thing.
X wrote:Your third point is a tautology: yes, you do not need to vote someone to gauge their reactions. However, it can help, because it applies pressure.
Tell me: just what additional pressure from a vote did you feel was necessary that you couldn't get just simply from telling Patrick you though he was suspicious for whatever reason(s)? Do you have reason to believe Patrick would ignore you? Do you have reason to believe your vote on Patrick would make or break his response to you?
You smell. It stinks. I'm catching some serious wafts of rotting scum. Time to bag 'em up!
camn wrote:I also am noticing that Dizzy comes out with almost the exact same case as Ether did, only on Skitzer, not Incog... but Dizzy catches a lot of heat for it, while Ether catches NO heat. What is the difference exactly?
While I think both are leaning town, I think Dizzy is more firmly in the town camp than Ether at this point. So stick that in your pipe.
(<3)
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).