In post 1264, Skullduggery wrote:Here you are calling it reasonable twice:
In post 1155, Aegor wrote:1) Playing scummily and having people vote you for playing scummily are very different
2) Even reasonable wagons can yield nice info
The plan sounds very reasonable.
Your statements are stupid and your posts are stupid and you have no critical thinking ability or reading comprehension, which quite surprises me given your alleged education.
Kaze was presenting a hypothetical situation, akin to a dilemma or some gambit. He then explained an objectively advisable course of action. I simply acknowledged -- with complete, impersonal detachment -- that his analysis of a hypothetical situation was correct. These situations are akin to a logic problem. If I thought Kaze was scum, would I be forced to find his assertion that 2+2=4 is unreasonable? I am actually terrified of what your answer is, so feel free to consider this rhetorical.
Did I ever suggest he was not scummy? No. Did I ever suggest that I found his explanations for his behavior reasonable? No. So STFU.
Do you always try to drown out your stances in arguments over semantics or is that only something you do when you draw Scum?
My stances are explicit and clear. Nice try.
If you think that my initial Flandre vote was terrible, you're more than welcome to be wrong about that. I won't hold it against you. What I want to know is why you would attack a vote that you agree with.
See
post 316. See also
post 439 and
post 451.
What was the intention there? What was the desired result of this attack? Were you just stirring the pot to see what would happen? Because right now all I see is this:
Step 1: Attack vote on Flandre despite (supposedly) having no objections to Flandre getting votes.
Step 2: ?????
Step 3: PROFIT!
Catch scum...duh. Are we even playing the same game?
AFB seems convinced that you're Town, Aegor, and I'd love to be able to trust his judgment on this, but I am having such a difficult time overlooking all the illogical things that you say.
Being illogical has
never
been my problem. I suggest you pick up a formal logic textbook.
