ekiM wrote:Parama, a couple of weeks ago you had a hissy fit and stopped responding to anything. I'm not going to do the same you, but please actually respond to what I said here:
I'm not responding when the whole argument against me makes no sense and you're failing to respond properly.
ekiM wrote:As for the points you raised in your last few posts:
Saying "Yes, I have been acting in a blatantly anti-town way, aren't I honest for admitting that?" doesn't somehow make it OK.
Also I'd love to hear from someone how voting for someone at the end of a conversation is a scumtell.
I'll admit to screwing up because I have nothing to hide.
And it's not simply voting me at the end, it's your reasons and the fact that you waited so goddamn long to vote me.
ekiM wrote:
No, you've stopped responding and engaged sulky-child mode when you can't think of why this is actually scummy. See the top of this post.
No, you just can't think up a good explanation. Get over it. I know when someone is reaching, and your post is just that.
ekiM wrote:
It's pretty obvious I want more content from all of them.
Then why did you vote one over the other 3?
ekiM wrote:
No, I listened to you reasons and critiqued them. Eventually you stopped responding and started whining instead. SEE ABOVE.
This is completely irrelevant to the point I raised.
ekiM wrote:This from you is what reaching actually looks like, by the way, making up bizarre contrived scummy motivations for stuff that has a much simpler explanation.
I'm working out what the most likely explanation for each scenario is.
ekiM wrote:It's possible to suspect more than one person at once. It's possible to have more than one person you want to apply pressure to.
You're awfully insulting for no good reason. I shan't respond in kind, but I'd ask you to can it. It adds nothing.
I'm sorry, when scum makes themselves so obvious yet nobody seems to care I get pretty pissed.
ekiM wrote:You realize you haven't actually responded here, right? If you think that's not the logic of your position, EXPLAIN WHAT YOUR POSITION IS.
I explained my logic first, THEN you simplified it. And I went over it again in 402. You're just not even trying to respond to it.
ekiM wrote:Supporting a wagon you totally don't agree with and previous argued against for no reason whatsoever is amazingly scummy. Saying "Yes, I did that. Aren't I honest?" doesn't change that, at all.
It doesn't change what I did, but I'm admitting to a mistake. The point about oversimplifying my logic is a mistake you're not willing to admit to, so you keep pushing it. That's how I know I'm right.
ekiM wrote:"Reaching"... you keep using that word...
I keep using it because it keeps applying.
ekiM wrote:Because Jack claimed to have role related info for believing him to be scum. Duh?
And you believed him without a second thought? Did you ever stop to question him?
(Note: I knew he was lying but I voted anyways because I knew Jack had reason to find him suspicious and I tend to trust the reads of my townish reads. Plus nobody was switching to ekiM anyways :/)
ekiM wrote:
1. He's not done anything I think is scummy and I agree with most of what he says.
Examples?
ekiM wrote:2. It's possible to suspect more than one person at once.
But you appear to be suspecting me the most out of everyone, yet your vote is in a different place.
ekiM wrote:3. I'm voting for horrordude because I suspect him.
You suspect me too, so why aren't you voting me? This contradicts your last point.
ekiM wrote:You realize your whole case for ML being scum is predicated on me being scum? Circular logic much?
You totally missed my ML case then. It's not based solely on you being scum. If you somehow manage to flip town I'd still want a ML lynch.