Open 572: Nightless Vengeful Mayhem - Game Over

[droog]

ehhhhhhhhhhh

i could see 103 from scum but
if blair thought i meant that wgeurts is town and we should lynch him blair's question makes sense

110 and the vote looks fine to me
wgeurts is getting lynched no matter what
that was the immediate conclusion of day 2

what kind of town credit does scum blair pick up by bussing?
or why does scum blair need to vote on a sure lynch?

the vote is null at best

[acryon]

ehhhhhhhhhhh

i could see 103 from scum but
if blair thought i meant that wgeurts is town and we should lynch him blair's question makes sense

But obviously you didn't think wgeurts was town, because otherwise why would you want to lynch him? There's a big difference between "Not sure if he is town or scum, but he is worth lynching," and "I think he is town, and we should lynch him anyway." Your post clearly conveyed the former and she tried to insinuate the latter.

what kind of town credit does scum blair pick up by bussing?

I don't think she is bussing; I already said I think only one of them is scum.

or why does scum blair need to vote on a sure lynch?

the vote is null at best

I think it was opportunistic. Nobody was really questioning wgeurts just yet, so she jumped in to start it. In a vacuum, this isn't scummy, but in the context of her other posts, I think it is.

[droog]

with 2/10 scum we have 6 mislynches to lose

i was thinking we could use 4

If that's your line of questioning, that's awful.

we have five mislynches left

i would rather have five mislynches than six with someone who will quickhammer

from the first 2 posts its reasonable to assume i meant
"wgeurts is town lets lynch him anyways"

frankly i could go either way on wgeurtrs
classic dumb townie or newb scum

but i dont want to go into another l-1 with someone who is willing to quickhammer

[Dyslexicon]

In post 83, droog wrote:
In post 73, YYR wrote:
In post 63, droog wrote:
yyr: move on from your question. what do you think of thor's entrance?

More votes on wagon are super neat.


deep breath
*sigh*

do you think thor looks town or scum
a thor read is not valid unless it is on someone who is not thor

What do you mean by this last bit? o.o

normal mafiascum play is to announce
often without prompting
that thor is a 'thor read'.

this would tell me nothing
it would tell me something if yyr had a thor read on someone who was *not* thor
we could extend this to all players site wide

for example i have a not_mafia read on thor

I still don't get it. I think I don't understand the context. Sorry =/

@Thor, You didn't explain your initial "did you just claim scum?" (paraphrasing) thing with Cheetory? I was wuut on that. If the leap is so logical you should have no trouble explaining it. Also, we have PLENTY of time today to explain why Blair is so scummy, since that is what you believe. Why wait for the wgeurts lynch? I don't like how you're avoiding questions.

1. I have been asked this before. My answer was (paraphrased) as follows; I answered that reasoning in the very post that I made the comment you are asking about. Please go back and read that post again. If you still don't understand the logic then come back and ask me about it and I will explain it, but I have already supplied that informationa nd will answer it by quoting it back to you.

That offer and answer stands.

2. I have actively been explaining why Blair is scummy...have you missed all of that?

3. You are saying I am avoiding questions, I will counter with the idea that you are avoiding reading posts, because literally both things you're complaining about I could answer with quotes. Ask me about them again and act bewildered like I haven't answered them and I promise to do so...and to mock your reading comprehension. Or go and read my last few posts today and the post where I made the 'claim scum' comment and notice that I've already done both of these. Your call.

@Droog - I actually though that your 'Thor read on someone else' thing was a joke like 'I could learn something if Thor had a read on someone else'. I think my internal joke was funnier than yours.

1. And I still don't get it. I don't get why it's so logical to assume Cheetory was claiming scum. To me it is not. I think it should be clear that I don't understand it, and I'm asking you to try and explain it in a different way than what you have. I don't see why you're so opposed to this, and I don't think it's too much to ask.

2. You hadn't when I posted my post the first time (and it disappeared) and I purposefully didn't catch up on the posts in the meantime because I didn't want to lose my train of thoughts or confuzzle them with new trains. I have a lot of trains. What you had said at that point was that Blair said something scummy and that there was PLENTY of time after the wgeurts lynch to explain that, in which I don't at all see why you would wait until after the wgeurts lynch. You did make claim about Blair afterwards, none of them which I felt pointed towards any alignment, just that you don't get each other's "logic" (and I'm totally writing as I remember things and preceive things, and I'm totally going to keep doing that :3). Acryon had more actual points towrads Blair imo (which are things I'm going to revisit soon).

3. You are right that I didn't read your very last posts. Nothing in Cheetory's post you pointed out was a scum claim, and I would like you to explain this in another way than you already have. Obviously, I'm not understanding where you're coming from with a couple of things. To me it would be great to get it explained in a different way if possible instead of you being snarky about it. I'm not the only one wondering. If you still feel like you've been as obvious as you can feel free to quote it again, that will help too. I'm trying to get where you're coming from, that's why I bother at all.

Droog, I was so sure that that was going to be a haiku from the formatting.

Blair, I'm in agreement with a policy lynch on wgeurts, but ON TOP OF THAT I have a scum read on him, and a much stronger one than I have on anyone else. The quickhammer is the reason for the policy lynch, and basically every post after that is my reason for the scumread.

Alright. I agree that wgeurts looks scummier now that he voted Blair after a lot of people had talked about Blair being scummy. Reads to me as saving his own skin (or trying to). Assuming Blair is town, which I'm inclined to think.

I'm still puzzled by the move to quickhammer though. As scum. But as town as well. Eh.

@Thor, your scum read on me is for very weak reasoning. Do you have any questions about it? Wagon should not be in plural in your sentence :3 (I haaad to).

I never claimed the reasoning was strong and only even provided the reasoning because I was asked to. If I wanted to get answers about it I would have already been asking you questions, I don't think I come across as shy. We are in a different state of the game than when I expressed the desire to lynch you, and though I don't find you townish I also don't see you as a top lynch option today.

Why are you so eager to discuss this?

I'm totally trying to imagine you shy.^^

I'm eager to discuss this, because I'm eager to interact with you. You're one of my higher suspicions right now. Interaction helps, to me, and also hearing reasoning for what people think about me and my alignemnt. You don't think I should be eager? I think I should.

I also have another question for you: Do you think Cheetory would be a likely lynch if the quickhammer hadn't happened?

@Droog, why do you read Thor as to

thor made an interesting choice by holding the cheetos wagon at L-1
lots of players would have backed off, especially after cheetory started posting longform

it would have been very easy to back off the lynch and suck up town credit for it

My response to this would be that I think Thor would do that as any alignemnt. (Which he confirmed). I think his forceful logic (in lack of a better description) isn't indicative of his alignment. My issue with him is where he focuses his energy, and also a thing that Johnny said, namely this:

There was equal opportunity to get on Wagbutts and you, I wanted to know why she elected to vote for the player that's not here. My guess was she didn't vote you because you're actually here to defend yourself.

This is where I scumread Dys, townread YYR,

and say I would townread Thor if I didn't know better.

I remember this gave me feels of Johnny and Thor possibly being scum together when I read it, and now Johnny has flipped scum. This is why I'm giving Thor dah attention. I've seen scum distance (not really distancing, maybe rather jokingly avoiding a read) in this manner before. It jumped out to me in any case, even before Johnny flipped.

[Dyslexicon]

@Phillammon

About your read on Blair, can you specify in your own words what statements are "odd" to you?

About your read on me, what thing is the minor town thing and what is the minor scum thing?

Phil, I don't think you answered this. This makes me sad

---

Blair. Hi. Hi, Blair.

[acryon]

with 2/10 scum we have 6 mislynches to lose

i was thinking we could use 4

If that's your line of questioning, that's awful.

we have five mislynches left

i would rather have five mislynches than six with someone who will quickhammer

from the first 2 posts its reasonable to assume i meant
"wgeurts is town lets lynch him anyways"

I don't think so, and the last quote of your's is irrelevant since it was after the comments in question. Clearly I'm not the only one that thinks so either since YYR called it out as well.

[Dyslexicon]

I quick hammered because he already had 6 votes and I was impatient and am

new to mafia on this forum

I'm not buying the bolded part. Unless you've never, ever played mafia before, the theory should be the same wherever you played. Just because you're new on this forum isn't an excuse to quickhammer.

VOTE: wgeurts

I believe that's L-1.

I'm kind of not buying that you're not buying it. Or rather, have you never seen players doing weird or not thought through things, or been kind of clueless? (Actually I think most of us are, sometimes :3 *raises hand*). My point is, what you're pointing out as the point of suspicion here feels weird to me. It doesn't make him any more likely scum or town from my point of view. Unless he deliberately quickhammered with the plan of playing a newbie card afterwards, which I find unlikely.

I'm curious about your reads at this point, if you have any you are willing to share? Your shaddowez name is so mysterious! =O

[Dyslexicon]

YYR is confusing me, so he's probably Town, too.

This be meta, not meta or joke?

[Phillammon]

@Phillammon

About your read on Blair, can you specify in your own words what statements are "odd" to you?

About your read on me, what thing is the minor town thing and what is the minor scum thing?

Phil, I don't think you answered this. This makes me sad

Apologies, I somehow missed that:

Gut feeling of scum on Johnny is minor town, but could easily be scum behaviour too as a subtle bus. Jumping on the wagon is minor scum, just cause "Follow the Leader", but could equally be town behaviour and just agreeing with the arguments.

With Blair, it's a lot of the same things that Thor's been calling out, actually- the use of the word "illogical", for example, always has me a bit wary- even more so because it's being used not to describe Thor's argument when she uses it, but Thor himself- going for the man, not the argument strikes me as a bit off. It may be faulty reasoning on my part, but it almost feels like (and I want to make it absolutely clear I am not saying this is the case, it's just the feeling I get from the wording) Blair is conceding that the argument is accurate, and as she can't refute the argument to discredit it, she's trying to discredit the argument by discrediting Thor and getting the argument by association. That's not town behaviour, to my eyes.

[Thor665]

1. And I still don't get it. I don't get why it's so logical to assume Cheetory was claiming scum. To me it is not. I think it should be clear that I don't understand it, and I'm asking you to try and explain it in a different way than what you have. I don't see why you're so opposed to this, and I don't think it's too much to ask.

Do you understand what I was calling her scum for? Whether or not you agree with me, do you understand my case?
If yes - then I don't get the point of this question.
If no - what part of my case confuses you and I'll expand on it.

I never claimed to oppose explaining it - why do you think I did? Please back up that statement with a quote or explain why you're trying to act like I'm doing something I very much am not doing.

2. You hadn't when I posted my post the first time (and it disappeared) and I purposefully didn't catch up on the posts in the meantime because I didn't want to lose my train of thoughts or confuzzle them with new trains. I have a lot of trains. What you had said at that point was that Blair said something scummy and that there was PLENTY of time after the wgeurts lynch to explain that, in which I don't at all see why you would wait until after the wgeurts lynch. You did make claim about Blair afterwards, none of them which I felt pointed towards any alignment, just that you don't get each other's "logic" (and I'm totally writing as I remember things and preceive things, and I'm totally going to keep doing that :3). Acryon had more actual points towrads Blair imo (which are things I'm going to revisit soon).

It is not my job to be aware of what you have and have not read - it is your job to be on top of stuff when you're asking questions.
I didn't want to get into it because I want wgerurts dead. I wanted him dead 12 hours ago, and for some reason town is derping around and wanting to be distracted. i do not think it is a good idea.
My statement on Blair's alignment is very clear.

3. You are right that I didn't read your very last posts. Nothing in Cheetory's post you pointed out was a scum claim, and I would like you to explain this in another way than you already have. Obviously, I'm not understanding where you're coming from with a couple of things. To me it would be great to get it explained in a different way if possible instead of you being snarky about it. I'm not the only one wondering. If you still feel like you've been as obvious as you can feel free to quote it again, that will help too. I'm trying to get where you're coming from, that's why I bother at all.

If you want it explained in a different way...well, first off ASK THAT. Don't say "you haven't explained it" say "I don't understand your stated reasoning". Those are two vastly different requests and will be approached in different ways.
Also, if you don't understand, it would be helpful to be told *what* you don't understand, so that I don't waste my time. And if it's "everything" then you really need to be totally up front with that because what you're asking for is a baby steps walkthrough...and I reserve the right to be snarky if that's what I need to do.

I'm going to take from your answer the following.

1. You agree you aren't reading things.
2. You agree you are asking me to explain cases further by claiming I haven't explained them at all - and recognize this is a poor way to go about it.
3. You admit to needing baby steps.
4. You admit to trying to slow and collapse the day in discussing cases that are pointless or that are not being actively pushed by me to get a "read" from me while ignoring my primary push that is unquestionably going through today and kind of joinging in the general town herp-derp of wasting time and energy instead of getting a flip now.

I find this bothersome, and refuse to avoid snark in responding to you, and frankly think if you're requesting this you should recognize that you deserve some snark.
I'll do up a step by step breakdown of both cases now.

[Thor665]

I never claimed to oppose explaining it - why do you think I did? Please back up that statement with a quote or explain why you're trying to act like I'm doing something I very much am not doing.

I would like you to answer this though considering you admitted to not reading all my posts.
Because that's just screwy and anti-town.

[Thor665]

Thor's case on a dead player that someone wants explained.

Spoiler: Trying to spare town meaningless walls of snark...somewhat ;)

Firstly, I don't understand the point of bandwagoning for the sake of bandwagoning, especially since it seems to me like most of the players here seem experienced enough to know that bandwagon analysis can be useful for town. Why would scum not simply position themselves on a wagon in such a way that will protect them from the general analysis players apply to bandwagons? Unless the point is just to put pressure on someone? Which, again, scum equally stands to benefit from safe bandwagon votes for the sake of appearing to be playing protown.

droog's vote on me stands out as the most likely candidate for scum posing as a protown player for adding momentum to a wagon without really doing anything else, which reads as coasting to me. By extension, I'm also not particularly a fan of Dys's vote, but I feel worse about droog's. Droog also calls YYR's questioning of me bad scumhunting which almost makes me feel like he finds YYR more questionable than me and thus makes his vote on me for purely bandwagon's sake even more questionable.

Correct me if I'm wrong here. But you're pointing out that bandwagoning isn't helpful because scum can place themselves on bandwagons in a way to avoid suspicion.
You then vote Droog for the reasoning of "his position on the bandwagon looks suspicious"

I feel like I *must* be reading this wrong, because if I'm not I feel like you just claimed scum. Discuss?

That is not how I read her commentary. She indicated that bandwagon analysis is good for town, but that scum could use it against town by controlling where and how they place themselves, and does this while complaining about the wagon on her. So, basically, she's saying no town should be doing it because we should know scum would use it, yet she also thinks town are doing it and that scum are using it. Functionally she's suggesting that everyone here needs a combo of poor town play and good scum play in order for her case to make any sense. It's a wifom snarl, because there is no evidence presented as to why she thinks that way. To be frank, it's also weird because even though she's saying town should know not to do early bandwagons, her only scumhunting effort is based off of analysis of an early bandwagon, meaning that, as town, she understands that's *exactly* a good way to scumhunt whether or not we think scum can try to hide themselves. So...what's her boggle specifically? It doesn't gel for me.

Okay, the above represents my case.
Frankly, I ALREADY think this is a step by step breakdown, but I'll see what I can do to make it simpler.

1. Blair makes a post.
2. In this post she complains about town bandwagoning (her).
3. She admits bandwagoning is a potential scumhunting tool.
4. She lists reasons why bandwagoning is bad however.
5. That reason is that scum know it's a scumhunting tool and will play the game and use it against town.
6. Therefore it is bad that we're bandwagoning her, because we should be good enough to know there's no gain.
7. Oh, but she has some scumhunting.
8. Using bandwagon analysis.
9. That she just complained couldn't give good reads, so why are we doing it to her?
10. But she has the ability to spot scum doing the move the precludes the value of bandwagonig, and, hzzah! Has spotted scum!
11. So this begs a question.
12. If she agrees that even stealthy scum can be scumhunted on a bandwagon, and indeed *uses* bandwagoning as a scumhunting tool. Why is she against the bandwagon?
13. I theorized (incorrectly as we have discovered) that this showed she was lying about something for some purpose, because clearly she knew it was a tool and even more clearly she would choose to use it, so why complain about it happening.
14. My theory was that it was because the wagon was on her, specifically, and the crossed message was because she was scum trying to downplay the wagon on her by lying about her scumhunting beliefs...possibly instead she did feel that way about wagons but chose to fake scumhunt and call an attacker scum to try to defuse the wagon.
15. I point out the inherent lack of internal logic/lie/what have you, explain to her that I find it jarring and that I presume she must be claiming scum.
16. Certain town players are confused by this and choose to ask me about it in weird ways that don't involve just asking about it.
17. She and I talk.

If any of this confuses you please cite the number of the point that confuses you and explain the confusion as best you are able and I'll attempt to make it simpler.
Literally all of this information is already in my quoted posts.
So...I dunno, hope this helps.

[Thor665]

Thor's case on a living player that Thor is almost assuredly pursuing tomorrow but, despite the fact that neither Thor nor his target are lynch options and also despite the fact everyone will be around to discuss it with after a lynch that must go through today, we want to debate it now for a reason...of...not being able to figure out Thor's alignment without doing so...apparently?

Spoiler: Again, snark and wall behind here

Okay, so my issue with Blair. Let's start with this post.
This is an IMPORTANT post to remember. So, do your best to remember this post and when I go BUT REMEMBER THAT FIRST POST!?! That will be your cue to recall this post.

So you feel a strong urge to stand up for and defend this town read, i take it?

Yes, but not for it's own sake - it was more interesting to me that you appeared to be attacking poor logic... illogically.

Blair attacks me (or, by her language, talks to me...) I personally think calling someone illogical is an attack, but we can use whatever word you wish and my point will hold. Blair avocado's me, whichever.
Specifically she calls my

attack

avacado on Cheetory illogical. Read her reply a few times, let it sink in, and then we shall move on.

I respond and explain my issue with the logic of Cheetory, but we can leave that out for the sake of succictness, the important issue is that I ask this;

Why do you like the logic? Specifically as you can, please, I'm a little dense at times.

I will now post Blair's response and my rejoinder in one fell swoop, again to save space.

Why do you like the logic? Specifically as you can, please, I'm a little dense at times.

I don't like the logic, but I can believe that Cheetory meant it when he said it - and I do like that.

I'm tossing a flag on this play. You dinged me for attacking something illogically - I was attacking the logic of the statement. For me to have been illogical you *should* be able to defend the logic to show where your ding on me was coming from.

So please try this again, no dodging allowed. I have a vote and am ornery.

So, Blair was a little weird there, she didn't want to come out and defend the logic (or explain why I lacked logic, which would have been another way to answer the question)
Instead she didn't answer the question, she dodged it and tried to reframe it as "liking the honesty" from Cheetory.
Well...that's all well and good, but whether or not you think it is honest has *nothing* to do with me thinking it's illogical. In fact, if you agree her logic is bad (which Blair appears to do here) then...how am I being illogical in attacking bad logic?
Where am I being illogical in the *manner* I'm attacking the bad logic?

The answer does nothing for that.
It's a dodge.

My reply is a NOT ON MY WATCH, YO! reply, wherein I'm trying to force Blair to be specific.
I saw the dodge and was not happy.

Explain my illogic then. Because if the above is it I fail to see how you can justify calling something you don't understand 'illogical'.

Not understanding someone's logic is generally how I recognize poor logic, yes. It was also an invitation for you to explain that leap to me. Are you declining, or is it so self-evident that you don't feel it's necessary?

We follow this up. I am asking now for her to explain my illogic and why she found my logic illogical.
She replies with "well...I didn't even understand your logic, and really was inviting you to explain it"
But...REMEMBER THAT POST!?!

Her first commentary to me was an avacado - Thor is being illogical.
What she is saying now is that when she wrote that what she meant was "I do not understand your logic nd would like it explained...by the way, Thor, how can you think I was ever attacking you?"

Here's the real deal.

1. She *was* attacking me.
2. She never attempted to ask for my logic.
3. She ignored that in Post 74 I explained my logic (allowing her to now assess whether it was or was not illogical - something she hasn't done.
4. When I asked her straight up what she was about (and in her later claim what she was about was asking me to explain my logic) she *dodged* answering.

So, when her goal was "what was your logic" she said "you are illogical" ignored my logic explanation, and dodged my question the first time when I was questioning what she meant when she called me illogical.

You tell me, do you think any of her actions read as "what was your logic, Thor?"
Now read them again and ask if they make sense for a scum attacking me but then getting spooked when I challenged her to back up the attack and provide support and thoughts for it.

I know which I read it as.
And that's going to be my case on her tomorrow...which could come a lot sooner if town decides to attach its head straight.

[droog]

mafiascum ate my post hang on

[droog]

I'm not getting your angle here.

"Scum can do X to avoid suspicion" + "PlayerY did X" = "I find PlayerY suspicious"

I disagree, but it isn't

that

irrational. Saying someone did something to avoid notice is not invalidated by having noticed it.

[...]

Thor is conclusion-jumping, but it's very early game and I'm having a hard time discerning how serious he actual was.

So you feel a strong urge to stand up for and defend this town read, i take it?

Yes, but not for it's own sake - it was more interesting to me that you appeared to be attacking poor logic... illogically.

Do you consider defense of early town reads pro town? Why/why not?

As much so as at any other point in the game, yes. Is the fact that it's "early" relevant?

Also, to answer your defense, she basically pointed out that wagon analysis is wifom - and then proceeded to suggest she could read a wagon enough to vote. That *does* seem to lack internal logic to me as a response. You may continue your defense of her with this clarification from me if you wish.

I must have missed where she called it WIFOM - I thought she was asserting she could read it?

Regardless, do you find a "lack of internal logic" a reliable early scumtell?

I find I'm the opposite - I would expect in the earliest stages of the game that scum would generally be the most logical, not the least. It is at this juncture that their information advantage is at its height, and their options are the most diverse - they have the luxury of choosing the scumreads that will sound the most reasonable and running with them, while Town tend to dive in with whatever cases they actually believe with little regard for their reception.

in the context of everything blair said that one quote doesnt look bad
the general trend of blairs response to you is definitely not an avocado

but i like this game where we replace words with different words and pretend they mean the same thing
thor, your case makes a lot of sense*

*which in my new special language means no sense at all

[Thor665]

in the context of everything blair said that one quote doesnt look bad
the general trend of blairs response to you is definitely not an avocado

Yes, it is an avacado, and no, her post does not make sense. Please explain the context you see, because I am clearly missing it. Addressing her dodge would be interesting as well if that also works into your explanation.

Someone should hammer while he's working on this.

[Blair]

Blair. Hi. Hi, Blair.

Yes, yes. I'm here. An old friend was in town today and I spent most of the day catching up.

I'll glance around and give my thoughts on the five or six people who've probably been speed-lynched in my absence.

[Blair]

YYR is confusing me, so he's probably Town, too.

This be meta, not meta or joke?

Generally when I can't make heads or tails of what someone is trying to say, I assume they're Town until I can sort it out - so I suppose it's meta in the sense that this is generally the pattern I've found to hold true, but it isn't personal meta - I haven't played with YYR before.

[Blair]

@Thor: I think we're talking circles around each other, so I'll "dodge" the quote-wall for now and just say this:

Yes, I was calling your push on Cheetory illogical. I wasn't "just" asking for clarification (this is a strawman, since I never claimed I was

only

asking for clarification - read the post you're getting that from again please). Here's why I found it illogical: Catching poor logic =/= catching scum.

You (very strongly) implied otherwise:

Correct me if I'm wrong here. But you're pointing out that bandwagoning isn't helpful because scum can place themselves on bandwagons in a way to avoid suspicion.
You then vote Droog for the reasoning of "his position on the bandwagon looks suspicious"

I feel like I *must* be reading this wrong, because if I'm not I feel like you just claimed scum. Discuss?

That was illogical. If it wasn't, explain the logic (and let's skip the part where you claim you already have and then I balk and go straight to the part where you snarkily quote the post where you think you explained it and/or explain it again more clearly and succinctly).

[Blair]

Oh, and Thor: I recall you partner-picking for me but I couldn't tell who you were pairing me with because I didn't recognize the nickname you were using for them (I'm inferring it was wgeurts?), could you explain that, too? I would be much obliged.

[droog]

you see blair attacking you and then denying she was ever attacking you

i see blair criticizing, reaching out, and explaining in equal parts

I disagree, but it isn't that irrational. Saying someone did something to avoid notice is not invalidated by having noticed it.
[/quote

explain what you think this means

Regardless, do you find a "lack of internal logic" a reliable early scumtell?

heres blair asking for clarification

I find I'm the opposite - I would expect in the earliest stages of the game that scum would generally be the most logical, not the least. It is at this juncture that their information advantage is at its height, and their options are the most diverse - they have the luxury of choosing the scumreads that will sound the most reasonable and running with them, while Town tend to dive in with whatever cases they actually believe with little regard for their reception.

blair did more than just attack you mate

your case is built on 68 and 108
68 covers a lot more than you make it sound
for someone attacking you she neglected to bring any attacks

"I must have missed where she called it WIFOM - I thought she was asserting she could read it?"

does not sound like someone attacking you

p-edit will read blairs posts next

[Blair]

I think it was opportunistic. Nobody was really questioning wgeurts just yet, so she jumped in to start it. In a vacuum, this isn't scummy, but in the context of her other posts, I think it is.

I actually thought shaddowez' vote was worse.

[droog]

thor your case is built on a small part of blair
the idea that she was attacking you is laughable reading the full of 68

[Blair]

droog, let's chat.

What do you think of shaddowez?

[droog]

actualy wait

P-edit: @Thor: I don't think Cheetory has to be logical for you to be illogical.

I didn't understand the leap from "you seem to be contradicting yourself in the same paragraph" to "You are essentially claiming scum" and I still don't.

P-edit: @Thor: I don't think Cheetory has to be logical for you to be illogical.

I didn't understand the leap from "you seem to be contradicting yourself in the same paragraph" to "You are essentially claiming scum" and I still don't.

this is 84 which you did not quote
shes already asked you to elaborate on your logic and then you reply

Explain my illogic then. Because if the above is it I fail to see how you can justify calling something you don't understand 'illogical'.