In post 1219, pisskop wrote:Lets lynch Gliffie, EPM, Tmj, West, or johnny
I would narrow that to EPM, TMJ, or West.
In post 1219, pisskop wrote:Lets lynch Gliffie, EPM, Tmj, West, or johnny
In post 1227, West9 wrote:I was about to say, why remove Gliffie?
In post 1228, bji wrote:In post 1227, West9 wrote:I was about to say, why remove Gliffie?
I like Gliffie. Gliffie replaced Aero, who I also liked.
In post 1229, pisskop wrote:And you liked Titus.
In post 1231, JohnnyFarrar wrote:Also I mean why cut me out of the suspect list? The townreads I am getting are from people who know my play, which is not a camp you've slept in
In post 1230, JohnnyFarrar wrote:In post 1228, bji wrote:In post 1227, West9 wrote:I was about to say, why remove Gliffie?
I like Gliffie. Gliffie replaced Aero, who I also liked.
Butt y tho
In post 1200, VictorDeAngelo wrote:
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:
No, it's not that our position's are irreconcilable, it's your thought process that is. You can't say that:
1It's possible referencing Titus was innocent and therefore your explanation makes sense.
2Referencing Titus is still suspicious.
And expect to be taken seriously do you?
VictorDeAngelo wrote:
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:
Oh look, another quote of mine with the context mysteriously removed.
VictorDeAngelo wrote:
Anyway, how is the way me and TMJ behaving consistant with scum bussing?
VictorDeAngelo wrote:
1You ignored literally every question in 1187, even the part where I asked you to rephrase your own question so I could actually respond.
VictorDeAngelo wrote:
2No misrepping != scumhunting.
VictorDeAngelo wrote:
3But youdidn'tdefend 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:
bji wrote: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?
In post 601, SilverWolf wrote:Yeah, Ari is scum.
In post 623, SilverWolf wrote:Victor: What is scummy about 566? I like to scumhunt on my wagon. What is your issue with it?
P. Brain-your vote is extremely opportunistic because you've been hopping on every wagon you can find and not explaining your votes. You've been voting for me all game.
This game is becoming extremely frustrating.
In post 691, Cheetory6 wrote:
In post 1240, evilpacman18 wrote:Has Prolapsed claimed or something? Why is nobody trying to lynch him?
Prolapsed Brain wrote:
God, so many delicious scums to choose from. It's like a buffet.
Let's go back to this one:
UNVOTE:
VOTE: SillvverrWollff
In post 1238, bji wrote:
Responding to individual sentences in your original post is not unreasonable at all, especially because I did it in exactly one place, where I thought it made a particularly clear point, and not in any other part of my long posting. That's all I'm going to say about this because this particular sub-argument is pointless.
VictorDeAngelo wrote:
No, it's not that our position's are irreconcilable, it's your thought process that is. You can't say that:
1It's possible referencing Titus was innocent and therefore your explanation makes sense.
2Referencing Titus is still suspicious.
And expect to be taken seriously do you?
Absolutely. Unless you believe that there is no such thing as suspicion of guilt in mafia, only certainty of guilt. Do you believe that?
VictorDeAngelo wrote:
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.
You chose Titus to agree with, not pisskop to disagree with or Gliffie to partially agree with. You must admit that this is true. Whether or not this is suspicious is the entirety of the debate here and I do not think we're going to agree, which is why I think our positions are irreconcileable.
VictorDeAngelo wrote:
Oh look, another quote of mine with the context mysteriously removed.
That was not my intention, and I do not think that anyone following the debate (if anyone was) had any trouble understanding the context of the quote. This is more hot air about irrelevent aspects of the way that I am framing my responses to you. You are clearly looking to doubtcast anything I am saying by attacking not just my statements, but irrelevant aspects of the way that I am making those statements.
VictorDeAngelo wrote:
1You ignored literally every question in 1187, even the part where I asked you to rephrase your own question so I could actually respond.
That is bullshit man. I responded to nearly every single paragraph from post 1187 in post 1197,including rephrasing my question at the end in response to your request that I do so,. I cannot even fathom how you can make this statement!and I even quoted the part of your post that I was responding to in doing so
In post 1191, bji wrote:In post 1187, VictorDeAngelo wrote:I mean, I am indignant even to respond to this sort of level argument, but I have this horrid feeling that if I don't respond, you're going to clog the thread up more than if I did.
Sounds just like this:
SilverWolf wrote:
This case is fabricated and false and leads me to believe you are possible scum. I can sometimes tell when scum is fabricating a scumread against me and this is exactly what it looks like to me but I'll go ahead and address each point.
The exact same sentiment: "I shouldn't have to respond to this, but I'm going to anyway". Scum really don't like defending themselves against me apparently, but they always feel obliged to do it!
Anyway, I think my point was clear. There was nothing in your counterpoint that said anything you hadn't already said. So yeah, I'll leave this topic alone for now and others can take from it what they like.
VictorDeAngelo wrote:
3But youdidn'tdefend 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.
I handwaved your post away because you had explicitly stated that you didn't want to talk about it anymore. You said:
"I mean, I am indignant even to respond to this sort of level argument, but I have this horrid feeling that if I don't respond, you're going to clog the thread up more than if I did."
and
"PEdit: @bji - because we should actually be discussing about better stuff than this."
So it seemed to me that you didn't really want to even talk about it.
And by the way, who gives a shit if I temporarily handwaved your post away, I responded to it like 3 posts later when you made it clear that you did want to keep talking about it.
Why do you keep bringing up irrelevent bullshit about the mechanics of this discussion? Is this your way of trying to detract from the actual topic at hand?
VictorDeAngelo wrote:
bji wrote: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?
Yes. I'm happy to let this topic die because I think that itiswasting everyone's time. So I'll say now that you are welcome to the final word and I will not respond to you on this topic anymore. I have made my points clear and made them repeatedly as have you. I believe we understand each other, and that no one else even cares.