Do I have to be to fucking defend it?In post 3372, BrightEyedFish wrote:Are you mechanically connected to the Assemble slot?In post 3371, Gamma Emerald wrote:Walter also genuinely tried to solve things
Sure.In post 3373, PookyTheMagicalBear wrote:show me an example?In post 3371, Gamma Emerald wrote:Walter also genuinely tried to solve things
In post 1608, WaltertheDunce10 wrote:A look up of john browne audio engineer does seem to be a guitarist.
Walter kinda had at least a decent out but instead chose to vote IKS for about the reasons I did (claim felt like a bid for time)In post 1713, WaltertheDunce10 wrote:Rereading iks claim in post 1682 makes me think it is not the right conclusion. Who puts abilities out to night 8? That is a really long time.
VOTE: iks
This isn’t really part of this, but can I take the opportunity to point out that chk trying to act like he’s not against policy does just make his IKS defense look way more like a chainsaw? Like, either he argued against a policy there while being in favor of policy in most other instances, or he had been consistent in that stance and he defended scum for no good reason. Either way, chk’s IKS defense is awful.In post 1750, WaltertheDunce10 wrote:The part where I call bs if it is chk nature against policy then why npom in the end.In post 1742, davesaz wrote:If there's anyone who looks like a chainsaw it's chk with the generic we're not eliminating this troll message.In post 1735, Bambi Jay wrote:I'd honestly prefer if we start on the people leading the counterwagon instead. Considering someone like Goofball called for a Vig shot on people voting IKS, it felt more like there was a chainsaw defense and less bussing.
I doubt it was that, because it's chk's nature to rage against policy, but I'm definitely keeping it in mind.
is this serious?In post 3374, Gamma Emerald wrote:This appeal to Lavender feels super-partnery and I’ve been calling Lavender and chk scum for a good while, so I think it’s high time I get listened to
No. But I just want to know if your strong read on Assemble is based on anything...In post 3375, Gamma Emerald wrote:Do I have to be to fucking defend it?In post 3372, BrightEyedFish wrote:Are you mechanically connected to the Assemble slot?In post 3371, Gamma Emerald wrote:Walter also genuinely tried to solve things
yesIn post 3379, PookyTheMagicalBear wrote:is this serious?In post 3374, Gamma Emerald wrote:This appeal to Lavender feels super-partnery and I’ve been calling Lavender and chk scum for a good while, so I think it’s high time I get listened to
Well given that I just posted what I feel are the most salient points for Walter!town, I’d say it’s more than just a feeling.In post 3380, BrightEyedFish wrote:No. But I just want to know if your strong read on Assemble is based on anything...In post 3375, Gamma Emerald wrote:Do I have to be to fucking defend it?In post 3372, BrightEyedFish wrote:Are you mechanically connected to the Assemble slot?In post 3371, Gamma Emerald wrote:Walter also genuinely tried to solve things
Spoiler:
Very. He's pandered around it for several phases now.In post 3379, PookyTheMagicalBear wrote:is this serious?In post 3374, Gamma Emerald wrote:This appeal to Lavender feels super-partnery and I’ve been calling Lavender and chk scum for a good while, so I think it’s high time I get listened to
No, it doesn't.In post 3374, Gamma Emerald wrote:This post essentially boils down to describing the IKS wagon as personality based in a way that parr’s down to a policy elim (the policy that trolling should be limmed). So uh, thanks for the Ace Attorney moment, pal.
In post 3228, chkflip wrote:Hey, remember when Death scum slipped on D1 and then y'all forgot about it?
Yeah I just revisited that. That's cool.
In post 3230, chkflip wrote:I was looking through Siteflakes ISO and saw a Death vote. Lead me to the slip. Not sure I agree with it, just bringing it up. Seems noteworthy.
See also: "I'm NoT dOiNg ThE wOrK fOr YoU lOl"
I don't really get this, someone want to help it make sense?In post 3232, PookyTheMagicalBear wrote:wait r you talking about 315In post 3228, chkflip wrote:Hey, remember when Death scum slipped on D1 and then y'all forgot about it?
Yeah I just revisited that. That's cool.
cuz that was dope
This was after I did the VCA that pointed to Walter and he was scrambling to dilute the water.In post 3378, Gamma Emerald wrote:
Anyway, the other thing I feel like demonstrates Walter’s towny solving drive is his attempts to analyze some of the IKS voter’s vote movements, but those posts are walls so I’ll spare the quoting of them, and if you can’t bother to find them yourself Ill just link the posts.
Would you like to refine your timeline?In post 3390, BrightEyedFish wrote:This was after I did the VCA that pointed to Walter and he was scrambling to dilute the water.In post 3378, Gamma Emerald wrote:
Anyway, the other thing I feel like demonstrates Walter’s towny solving drive is his attempts to analyze some of the IKS voter’s vote movements, but those posts are walls so I’ll spare the quoting of them, and if you can’t bother to find them yourself Ill just link the posts.
My post: 1721In post 3391, davesaz wrote:Would you like to refine your timeline?In post 3390, BrightEyedFish wrote:This was after I did the VCA that pointed to Walter and he was scrambling to dilute the water.In post 3378, Gamma Emerald wrote:
Anyway, the other thing I feel like demonstrates Walter’s towny solving drive is his attempts to analyze some of the IKS voter’s vote movements, but those posts are walls so I’ll spare the quoting of them, and if you can’t bother to find them yourself Ill just link the posts.
Because it's me? Duh?In post 3388, davesaz wrote:I made references to policy vs. not policy earlier and nobody went apeshit. Why is this time different?
In post 1717, The Baker wrote:
For posterity. Gonna take a look at these and more in-depth later. Bit difficult with only three flips but I'll see if there isn't something to be made here.In post 2845, The Baker wrote:
andIn post 3397, DrippingGoofball wrote:What do you mean by "only not on town?"