In post 742, Ingeel wrote: In post 738, Cooperative Sheep wrote: In post 709, Ingeel wrote: In post 473, Cooperative Sheep wrote:@Ingeel - can you describe any better why you actually town read Drag at that point in time? You're giving me lots of empty town buzz words and ignoring that I'm pointing out there was no logic in any of your presented points to call him town over.
I don't really see how they were illogical, it moreso feels like a confliction of play styles
But whatever, i felt he had town motivation, his tone was sincere, and i felt his thought process came from a town PoV
I specifically described why I see them as illogical and walked through the process - can you address my thoughts and stop dodging?
How have i not addressed the problem
By...not addressing it?
Basically you've said this;
"The case is logical!"
I responded with this;
"Here is why the case is not logical [example 1, example 2, example 3] can you clarify why you find it logical?"
And the best response I got was the one quoted here, which is functionally saying;
"Because town buzzwords!"
So, you're absolutely failing to give me anything to work with to try to understand why you believe what you say you believe, and you also avoided discussing my rather specific breakdown of why I am 180 in opinion from you, on the amount of logic in Drag's posting. What I'm trying/hoping to get is for you to respond to my points in about the same way I made them, where you actually walk me through the "logic" you see and explain how you see it, and why I'm foolish for not seeing it at all.
Until you manage that, my personal reaction to your answers is that you *can't* answer like that, because you're lying to me.
Which makes me think you're scum.
Which is why I'm trying to lynch you.
Do you understand my stance now?