Looking at the context is why I did not buy his counter argument that both were true. First here is a break down of the two anecdotes:In post 589, Not_Mafia wrote:It's not, both of those thing can be trueIn post 586, VFP wrote:This is a really good post and a good spot.In post 574, Lukewarm wrote:Hopefully, everyone sees the discrepancy here. So it seems to me, like he was making up a story to try and get people to agree with his push at the time, and did not realize that he had already made up the exact opposite story. This reeks of scum trying to manipulate town.
If you read the context to Pear's posts they are even worse. It's the before and after having NorwegianboyEE as scum.
Just adapting the comment to suit their agenda.
Now I am pretty sure that Anecdote 1 is a true anecdote, and Anecdote 2 is a false one that Pear made up to push a particular narrative.
Here is the context for 124. Marci town reads NorwegianBoy for being town, and Pear is trying to make the point "being helpful is NAI" and he tells Anecdote 1. But imo, if BOTH anecdotes are true, then why would he not have used Anecdote 2? That anecdote would prove the point better, but because anecdote 1 kind-of-sort-of works, he did not feel the need to lie. In general, scum tries to avoid lying when possible.
And next the context of post 419. Norwegianboy is under fire, and Pear is trying to make the argument "Norwegianboy is scum, despite him being helpful earlier, and we should hammer him." Suddenly, anecdote 1 doesn't work to push that narrative. If anything, telling the true anecdote 1, would indicate that we should not have voted Norwegian boy, because in that story, the person turned out to be town all along. So Pear, who wants to make the case that we should vote out Norwegianboy, creates the false anecdote 2, adjusting the first one to make it fit within the new narrative he is trying to push. And he just did not remember that he has already shared the original story, like 8 irl days earlier.