edocsil wrote:Aage, you misunderstand my line,
less likely to be town
was in fact the exact opposite of my point. Due to town outnumbering scum he is MORE likely to be town, just the same as any other player.
Bah, used the wrong word in two consecutive posts. You know what I meant, I wouldn't misquote deliberately. Just read "more" where it says "less" and both posts are correct. Sorry for the confusion.
edocsil wrote:Did you just need more than one argument in order to seem more convincing?
Generally I find it
--word missing--to find several scummy things to pick upon, because there is usually more then one mistake if you look close enough.
Being a statistical towny isn't really a mistake, though. Secondly, everyone being a statistical towny is an argument against a random lynch, not an argument against lynching Saf specifically. Also, *than.
chapcrap wrote:aage wrote:chapcrap wrote:What is all this craziness?
Do you guys think people are actually acting scummy? Because I see nothing still. The scummiest thing to people is people trying to paint others as scummy when nothing is actually happening.
[/wifom]
Calling something wifom, doesn't make it true. In what way is that wifom? I was making an observation. There is literally nothing scummy except for people trying make baseless accusations.
It's wifom because you can call anyone in that line of though scummy. I can call you scummy for calling the people who say others are scummy, scummy. And now you can call me scummy again. It's wifom because a) it leads to nothing and b) it never ends.
chapcrap wrote:aage wrote:I quoted him because I disagreed with him, so I was bound to contradict him eventually. The part you highlighted referred to the earlier post made by Edoc'sil in which he said he didn't want to lynch Safari because he was "less likely to be town (statistical odds, has nothing to do with posts)" (paraphrased). Maybe that's where you got confused.
Also, let me note that I haven't mentioned lynching or even voting Edoc'sil at all. I just gave my view on the current affairs. It's curious how the "accusation" Edoc'sil made doesn't paint anyone scummy but my observation does.
You disagree so you were going to contradict him? Ok that argument would work if that's what happened. You didn't contradict him or oppose him. You said that he said something completely different than what he actually said. I didn't get confused. Edoc said he was more likely to be town. You keep saying that he said saf was less likely to be town. You've done it twice now.
Well, you did just actually say this in your first post after mine:
chapcrap wrote:He quotes edoc and then directly contradicts the quote in his second sentence.
Did you mean the paraphrased part? As I said, I misquoted edoc'sil, sorry.
In
this post I do
It's interesting how quickly the Jonty bandwagon formed on a poor accusation, and it's even more interesting how Edoc'sil is getting voted so quickly now.