In post 1199, bji wrote:
Pu-lease. I took that sentence off of the end of the paragraph because it very clearly and directly was evidence for my assertion that your posting didn't really say anything new. What is scummy about that? Did lopping that sentence off of the end of your paragraph and responding to it separately somehow misrepresent you? My point is that you weren't just making the same defense in your post, you were in some circumstances using nearly the exact same wording. I thought that showing that sentence in isolation would demonstrate that.
Yes it is. You originally claimed that there nothing new. The fact is there was clearly stuff you should have responded to in the post. You can't just take a large post and then highlight the odd sentence where I repeat something said before, out of context, just to try and show I said nothing new. It's a cheap attempt to score points and town doesn't do that in my experience.
VictorDeAngelo wrote:
And if no one had responded to Pisskop that's probably what I would have done (though I would disagree that the "even if pisskop is town" is necessary or equivalent). But Titus got there first. And I chose to agree with her. To say that reading someone's post and agreeing is focusing on her is absurd.
I understand your position here. I understood it the first time you said it. Yes, it's obviously possible that your reference to Titus could have been innocent and if it was, the explanation you give would be rational.1However, the simple fact is that you referenced Titus specifically in a situation in which you did not need to and I find that suspicious. Our positions seem to be irreconcileable, which is why I said we'd have to agree to disagree.
No, it's not that our position's are irreconcilable, it's your thought process that is. You can't say that:
1
It's possible referencing Titus was innocent and therefore your explanation makes sense.2
Referencing Titus is still suspicious.And expect to be taken seriously do you?
First, the point is irrelevent because Gliffe and Titus said different things. It doesn't make sense for me to say I agree with the statements I don't agree with.
Another straw man! I never said you should say that you agree with statements you don't agree with. I simply tried to demonstrate that there are other ways to have said what you said that wouldn't have required a little distancing from scum clause.
Except you know that the reason I said I agree with Titus is because I agreed with Titus. It wouldn't be worth saying "I agree with some of what Gliffe is saying but differ in the following...." or something ridiculous to that extent.
VictorDeAngelo wrote:
1154 - You say I have scumslipped by saying "even if Titus was scum". Then you say
1) it's improbable that me/Titus/TMJ are scum together.
2) but it sure does make sense they'd bus each other.
Yes, my wording in that post was really bad and I didn't convey what I meant well. What I meant was that I acknowledge that the chance of naming two scum is really low and it's generally a pipe dream to believe that you've found a scum pair bussing each other ... and yet, the way that you and TMJ are behaving is consistent with scum bussing. The "it sure does make sense" was a really awkward way of saying "it sure does look like".
I wanted to respond to myself and correct that when I re-read it but I have this constant tension between feeling like I post too much and annoy people (which I am sure I do), and trying to be sure that I'm clear at all times. I decided to let that one go rather than edit via subsequent post because I though it just might have been clear enough to not need correction. Guess not.
Oh look, another quote of mine with the context mysteriously removed.
Anyway, how is the way me and TMJ behaving consistant with scum bussing?
Titus wrote:
I don't need to defend it, it's scummy to begin with. You can talk about how I "sullied" my statement with Titus name, but you keep ignoring the fact that you can't say "I agree with Titus" without using the word Titus, and you can't really complain that I choose to say I agree with player X, instead of saying I disagree with player Y or I partially agree with player Z.
You didn'thaveto say you agreed with Titus. That's the part that's suspicious, having invoked her name in a sentence where it was unnecessary and also happens to provide distancing from her and also weakens the statement anyway if you think she could have been scum. But all I'm saying is that it's suspicious! Are you saying that you wouldn't have found that statement at all suspicious if it had been made by someone else?
Sure, but I did agree with her. I didn't feel the need the lie. I don't see how that's suspicious at all. I'd imagine a majority of our posts would feature content that could deemed unnecessary.
But no invoking a scum's name does not weaken a statement. You keep making this argument and it keeps continuing not to be true.
And no, I wouldn't find that statement remotely suspicious if someone else made it.
VictorDeAngelo wrote:
I notice how you tried to dress it up as the argument going round in circles but it's not. You simply ignored all the questions I asked you. You claim points I'd never made before were somehow me repeating myself. The trouble I'm having is that I can't see any town reason to do this.
Nah man, it's definitely going in circles. I suspect everyone else can see that as well as I can. If you would like to point out a question that I ignored, I'll be happy to answer it.1Also, the town reasoning here is called scumhunting.2As in, I see something suspicious, I believe it may be a scumslip, I make my case, and then I defend it.3
1
You ignored literally every question in 1187, even the part where I asked you to rephrase your own question so I could actually respond.2
No misrepping != scumhunting. 3
But you didn't
defend it. When I challenged you, you simply handwaved my entire post away. I had to bait you into defending yourself. And despite the fact it was the first time I comprehensively responded, you claimed there was "nothing new" and tried to quickly put the topic behind us. That's not what the way you treat a top scumread.VictorDeAngelo wrote:
If someone challenges your case, especially one of your top scumreads, why back away? Why agree to disagree?
Because I believe that we've made our cases and I don't see them progressing much further with further discussion. That's why. I don't want to waste everyone's time with repetitive arguments.
You can't be serious right?
Even if I can believe you thought you'd spotted something, you can't have believed you've made a case. Not in the slightest. I mean how strong a scumread am I?
If I was strong scumread, you'd be looking to put together more than the sentence fragment you have, otherwise how would you expect to ever get me lynched?
If I'm not a strong scumread, how would expect to work out whether I'm scum or not without engaging with me further?
Ok, at this point, we actually are going to start repeating ourselves, and I kinda want to go to bed at some point. I guess anything else I'll respond to in the morning.
