Instead of quoting your whole thing and making a wall, I sifted through the useless stuff and brought out your actual points.
1. "He tries to add fear to the situation, when he says that it could hit a Townie, or worse, a POWERROLE. To me, this is blatant fearmongering."
Your opinion on what I said, was that because I was cautious with your faulty attempt at a case, I was fearmongering? Me saying you could hit a powerrole is me being cautious, not trying to cast fear onto anyone. Truth be told, you could say ANYTIME you lynch someone, you could hit a powerrole. But it'd be to no advantage. I wasn't discouraging a lynch, I was discouraging a lynch based on faulty reasoning.
2. "He then tries to call my posting entrapment, which it isn't."
I love how you throw the word in "tries." I'm pretty sure Me: "If anything, it's trapping play" was me calling your play trapping. There was nothing "attempted" there. It was blantantly called out. But grammar and punctuation aside, your quote here:
"If we keep you around, you're likely to continue this distracting play, and are going to lead to the Town's loss"
(which could also be considered fear mongering you hypocrite.. oh no, if we keep him around we lose??) that post above is a trap. No matter what he says, you can twist to use against him because you set it up perfectly here. Now it's a "you're only talking because I'm pressuring you, let's lynch him anyways" or a "see now you're not making a good enough defense, you're obviously going to be a distraction goodbye! lynch time!" Either way, no matter what he does, you've now successfully set up a potential lynch. And if you're scum, a mislynch which is a perfect chance. I've played enough games as scum to know a scum mindset and a scummy trapping play when I see it.
3. "You are saying that Pinkfloyd specifically gets better once outside of RVS, and that wagoning him now is a bad thing. You are saying that my argument is wrong."
This is so misrepresenting what I said, it's not even funny. First and foremost, this isn't even my case. Show me anywhere in my posting where I stated anything that you just said I stated. You're a liar, simply put. I never said Pink gets better, nor did I say a wagon on him is a bad thing. I never even really called your argument wrong, just faulty. My original post is
here so people can compare what you said I said, to what I really said and see how you've completely pulled your accusation out of your butt. I explained your play was trapping, explained why it was bad, explained the possible result, and even clarified that my problem wasn't with Pink, it was with your fault case. I clarified that when I stated that "I'll gladly prove how many people JUST LIKE HIM..." It wasn't him I was arguing for, it was the faulty case I was arguing against. I never came to HIS defense personally.
4. "I'd also like to ask you what purpose your post was meant to have."
You're right but let me clarify. What I wanted was: I wanted to stop the wagon from developing on something faulty such as your case. I wanted to call you out for obvious entrapment, scummy play deserves to be called scummy. I wanted the town to approach the situation you created cautiously, and not blindly. And I wanted to see your reaction. Unfortunately, for the last part you've started to confirm to me that you're scum-motivated and not town-motivated like I was expecting. You can attack me for pointing out your faulty case all day long, but either way the spot light will stay between us which is exactly where I'm comfortable with it being. I have nothing to hide, but I'm pretty sure you do.
), but oh well.