In post 246, Nauls~ wrote: In post 242, Windows~ wrote:165 and 166 from Nauls also seem like projection - he calls 116
a possible chainsaw defence but isn't that what 165 could be - a defence of Palmer by attacking the person criticising Palmer?
This is nonsensical to me. I disagreed with an argument someone made calling someone else scum, therefore it’s odd for me to theorize on a potential chainsaw defense??
and this is all implying that I’m scrutinizing my own posts for possible negative interpretations of them, which I happen not to be doing because yknow, I’m a townie.
I’m seriously confused as to how this is an actual point being made.
I'm not implying scum are scrutinising their posts (though they may be). My theory is more like:
1. Scum are somewhat aware of dubious things they're doing
2. That awareness means they're more likely to notice townies doing the same dubious things
3. Therefore someone calling out someone else for a dubious behaviour they're also engaging in is more likely to be scum than if they weren't doing the same thing
I suppose it could be boiled down to 'hypocrisy is scummy'.
In terms of your post it was specifically this line which felt like a subtle attack on the person attacking Palmer:
In post 165, Nauls~ wrote:
Maybe you're scum or maybe you just have a different outlook than them on the game, if it's the latter then I urge you to reconsider.
---
I agree with Lars calling out Palmer's response to my earlier post. Not just for sheeping but also this claim I was looking for a gotcha on Copper:
In post 249, Palmer~ wrote:
Also, the "this is a contradiction from Copper!" is a horrible point in
242. It feels like desperately trying to fish out a gotcha
Copper went from "mostly a gutread" to "this kind of behaviour is really scummy" in literally 2 minutes, you don't see a contradiction there?
Cooper tries to justify this but I don't buy it:
In post 255, Copper~ wrote:
I had not quite finished my backread when responding to Bennings, Norris started getting really trolly on page 8 which I didn't read during the "sheeping" comment, the "trolling" comment came after I read everything.
You finished the backread in the 2 minutes between those posts?
And the "we're not even on page 10" sounds like you were caught up:
In post 206, Copper~ wrote:
Opportunistic how? It's mostly a gutread but we're not even on page 10.
"I forgot to mention the scumminess of the posting style" is an explanation I could have bought but "I was still rereading" I don't think fits with that timeline.