I'm not sure if this is a serious question. Surely you've characterized people before and they've just denied your characterization. I called your skepticism shallow because it didn't seem to have much of a layer of investigation. No "why" just an immediate "This seems scummy" without curiosity, but i'm geting the feeling we just have different mindsets.In post 586, Thestatusquo wrote:I don't know what to tell you man this is how mafia works. You do a thing. I view that thing through my lens of understanding and decide what it means. Because I'm not you and I can't be inside your head. I'm saying I felt that progression was odd and it felt conciliatory to me in a way that surprised me.In post 580, Bell wrote:Yo, I'm not being apologetic or backpedaling. You said I was.
I was saying where this opinion was being formed and through what length of time. You denied it based on how you felt and acted on page 20. I was giving a possible explanation for the discrepancy. You expressed the opinion that it was convenient that I had read up to page 6 only "a likely story" because it gives me room to maneuver out of a point of conflict. But what I'm saying is, that, actually. I just read up to page 6 and that's where the formation of my opinions was coming from in that post.
and here we are.
Obviously you don't have to believe what someone says, I'm just telling you that it's true.
This whole interaction is weird. You did a thing. I told you how that thing looked to me and then you're like "But come on man I told you that wasn't the reason."
Like cool? So what? What do you want me to do with the information that you don't think the thing you did was scummy?
I would like to state that I think it's in a town player's interest to want to know which players are telling the truth and which aren't, I'm just letting you know that your characterization is incorrect.