Is it pre-flip associations time? Let me get the popcorn.In post 106, Val89 wrote:that you were defending a scum partner
VOTE: Val
AMA while I read backwards.
Is it pre-flip associations time? Let me get the popcorn.In post 106, Val89 wrote:that you were defending a scum partner
Obvs Im going in reverse, and was happy to see the preflip associations thing wasnt serious. I have reached two pretty safe conclusions: Im going to be too dumb to follow Val's cases, and Luke is the kind of addictive player who doesnt sign off until 4 hours after they intended to do so. Finally, with the quote, this is a pretty good sign that you are tunnelled and not hearing. Conf bias is a hell of a drug.In post 97, Lukewarm wrote:This newest angle coming from you really just feels like you are trying to weasel your way out of statements that are now being held against you
Im lazy - will you actually quote them saying the similar thing? Without hard proof, this would be quite effective manipilation.In post 88, Lukewarm wrote:You said similar things several times throughout our last game together, and we were both townIn post 83, marcistar wrote:so far i've kinda thought luke seemed a bit off (mostly cuz i dont like his points on val98 very much)
I appreciate you.In post 61, Not_Mafia wrote:The ironyIn post 60, Val89 wrote:By the way, does anyone else have an opinion if Zyla's post counts as a potential Buzzword scumtell?
Why not vote yet in the game - do you normally not RVS.In post 13, marcistar wrote:portia and pavowski both start with a p, which makes u teammates try to fight this undeniable logicIn post 11, Pavowski wrote:Since Val and Vote both start with V and linguistic logic will not be denied
In post 116, Val89 wrote:Let's expand that 106 quote just a tiny bit more:In post 110, Portia wrote:Is it pre-flip associations time? Let me get the popcorn.In post 106, Val89 wrote:that you were defending a scum partner
Did you really take that to mean I was making legimitiate pre-flip associations?In post 106, Val89 wrote:The thing I think might potentially be scummy is the fact that you took something I thought was obviously non-serious, that you were defending a scum partner, as serious, when at least some other players did not.
This is a fair comment - I was a bit boozed up and Agro, and apologize to Luke and you all. That your post felt misreppy after I had taken a stance is not an excuse for being a jerk. I’m sorry to the board.In post 189, Pavowski wrote:don't love the tone of how he jumped on you in 166,
Luke you mind hitting this upIn post 112, Portia wrote:Im lazy - will you actually quote them saying the similar thing? Without hard proof, this would be quite effective manipilation.In post 88, Lukewarm wrote:You said similar things several times throughout our last game together, and we were both townIn post 83, marcistar wrote:so far i've kinda thought luke seemed a bit off (mostly cuz i dont like his points on val98 very much)