About this:
Just a bit curious about this:LaptopGun wrote:Justin, I need a bit of clarification from you. I found your analysis of kabenon reasonable and certainly needs addressing. However I find it's at odds with what you told him previously in post 162 (fyi page 7). You talk about his suspicions of Shteven and specifically talk about the logic of the hypotetical freudian slip. I do not mean to suggest that this is bad analysis. What I want to know is, why does this not appear on your subsequent post explaining a whole host of new problems with kabenon? It seems you relegated it to a throwaway line about k's attacks on shteven. I would think that that only helps your case even more that kabeon never responded to you directly. He attempted to clarify it to others (such as Fonz, Vokan, and Farside when they questioned him) but you have not followed that line of questioning your self. Are you saying that as you put it "Quick thoughts" have been surpassed?
To be at odds would generally be construed to mean “contradicts”. If this is what you mean can you point out how anything in my later post contradicts what was in the previous one? If you do I would be pleased to answer.LaptopGun wrote:However I find it's at odds with what you told him previously in post 162 (fyi page 7).
About this:
I think you answer this yourself just after:LaptopGun wrote:What I want to know is, why does this not appear on your subsequent post explaining a whole host of new problems with kabenon?
Most especially, in this case, his exchange with Vollkan. I dislike asking the precise same questions another player is already asking, for a number of reasons. Although it seems all right to me, sometimes, to return to the same questions at a later time to see if someone’s answers have “evolved”, pursuing this line heavily at the same time it was being pursued by another seems more designed to crack someone regardless of alignment than to find scum.LaptopGun wrote:He attempted to clarify it to others (such as Fonz, Vokan, and Farside when they questioned him)
This troubles me just a bit:
I don’t think my case wants that kind of help. Kabenon was answering questions about his accusation against Shteven. To pursue him for not addressing his answers to me in particular would be persecution, not investigation. If you would, could you explain to me what value this would have other than to try to force a lynch regardless of Kabenon’s alignment?LaptopGun wrote:I would think that that only helps your case even more that kabeon never responded to you directly.
Finally:
Well, my quick thoughts were expressed. But certainly I am more suspicious of Kabenon007 for the behavior I pointed out in my later post than I am for the poor accusation of Shteven.LaptopGun wrote:Are you saying that as you put it "Quick thoughts" have been surpassed?