Just because my read is not up to your standards of fully explain or something along that line doesn't mean I haven't explained why you're scum in the past. You know this is true because we've talked about this before.In post 4696, EspressoPatronum wrote:I said you have not fully explained your read of me. You said that is false. I asked you to quote the posts (ie. Prove that my statement is false).In post 4692, MariaR wrote:Click my iso. I've openly been calling you a scumread for most of this game I'm not gonna go cherry pick my own posts when I've said why you're scum before.In post 4690, EspressoPatronum wrote:Quote the postsIn post 4681, MariaR wrote:This is also openly false.In post 4676, EspressoPatronum wrote:You actually haven't fully explained your read on me. You usually just give a weak reason and then ask for why people TR me... I haven't seen a scumcase yet.
Not only did you fail to quote any posts supporting your claim, you also tried to move the benchmark for what were arguing. Calling me scum is not the same as explaining your read on me.
You're asking me to reread your ISO to find something that I've already stated isn't there.
I did not fail to quote any posts because I know the posts exist and I shouldn't have to waste my time going back to get them. I agree, calling you scum is not the same as explaining my read. But the thing is, I have explained my read on you before. You clearly haven't read my iso because you'd see it it's in there.