So dolittle provided some. You didn’t yet you claim you did.In post 396, chamber wrote:The unrefutable counterfactual is that DrDolittle nullified your argument about me 'playing like a noob'In post 393, Wimpy wrote:Except you didn’t provide counterfactualsIn post 391, chamber wrote:Almost like I think an unwillingness to change your mind when presented with counterfactuals is scummy.
This isn’t true.In post 395, chamber wrote:When DrDolittle came out against your "this is chamber pretending to be a newb" argument, you brought up a bunch of other arguments.
It’s implied hereIn post 391, chamber wrote:Almost like I think an unwillingness to change your mind when presented with counterfactuals is scummy.
ikr. Sometimes they bring up stuff that doesn't even make sense. I'm just watching this unfold before going to bedIn post 397, bugspray wrote:on the topic of neighborhoods... (and a bit tinfoil)
what if wimpy and chamber are svs? scum agreeing to be fake neighbors could really disrupt the town
also i trust salamance and the turkey, i think they both have put good ideas forward and i trust their plans
The cheeky part of me wants to tell you to vote for Wimpy if you think this is SvS. I find this point to be pretty weird though. It's the 2nd time you've suggested we are both scum, but the first time made me think you had some sort of PT related ability and thought 1 town PT set would be too few (which I disagree with being the case). You now suggesting that there is no neighbourhood makes me way more confused about your earlier thoughts.In post 397, bugspray wrote:on the topic of neighborhoods... (and a bit tinfoil)
what if wimpy and chamber are svs? scum agreeing to be fake neighbors could really disrupt the town
also i trust salamance and the turkey, i think they both have put good ideas forward and i trust their plans
It's not.In post 403, Wimpy wrote:It’s implied hereIn post 391, chamber wrote:Almost like I think an unwillingness to change your mind when presented with counterfactuals is scummy.
And if that’s not what you meant I apologize. But you saying counterfactuals were provided is false anyways. One man’s opinion isn’t fact.In post 403, Wimpy wrote:It’s implied hereIn post 391, chamber wrote:Almost like I think an unwillingness to change your mind when presented with counterfactuals is scummy.
You summed up your game perfectly.In post 410, chamber wrote:Spew bullshit, get called on it, move on to new bullshit.
In post 110, chamber wrote:Too distracted by scum PT.
In post 337, chamber wrote:You have horrible reading comprehension
In post 337, chamber wrote:I've never been voting you for suspecting me,
In post 350, chamber wrote:I admit I'm wrong when I think I'm wrong
In post 356, chamber wrote:Of my first 3 posts the first and third were scumhunting. You clearly disagree, but you aren't town.
In post 363, chamber wrote:My first post was a serious vote
When reading this post, who here thought those were the caliber of 'lie' he meant?In post 411, Wimpy wrote:You summed up your game perfectly.In post 410, chamber wrote:Spew bullshit, get called on it, move on to new bullshit.
That’s why your scum. I haven’t spewed bullshit. You have. I think you’ve lied 4-5 times already.
In post 384, chamber wrote:You haven't been an open book