In post 87, Flubbernugget wrote: In post 75, Bullish wrote:
What is this, the 5th time you've said my name and "suspicious" or "scum" in the same sentence? I'll have you know that I probably out game you by about 20 games, and "fishing for answers" is a form of scum hunting and a town tell.
Perhaps one of us is using the term "fishing for answers" wrong. To me, "fishing for answers" is trying to strong arm someone into answering a question in a way you want them to, as opposed to trying to read the answers given to specific questions.
Also, if people stopped asking the same questions I wouldn't repeat myself.
If you thought I was strong arming a specific response, then you are exhibiting symptoms of paranoia. I asked a question. I expressed (jokingly too) concern over an answer whose format woul usually be seemed unacceptable as a legitimate answer.
I wouldn't answer a question when it isn't asked either.
In post 89, Flubbernugget wrote: In post 75, Bullish wrote: In post 70, Flubbernugget wrote:
That early in the game, those were the only straws to grasp at. Now I am more suspicious of Bullish for the reasons I have already stated.
And if you still feel that a question is a legitimate answer to another question, consider this;
Ask: "What is the largest state in the U.S.?"
Response: "What would a person smarter than me say?"
Not. Acceptable.
I am now FoSing you.
This example is a straw man, because the response is trying to direct the most rigorous answer to some third party. However, with questions that have more abstract answers, a question can encapsulate a concept more concisely, and often more elegantly, than a direct statement. Consider a more classic example of a question answered with a question:
There's billions of people in the world, so why did some event happen to me of all people?
If not you, then who?
For someone that has 20+ games over me, I'm sensing a lot of confirmation bias over a disagreement rooting in semantics. I'm not here to argue with you; I'm here to lynch mafia.
Your response did in fact in a way redirect the answer to a third party. "What everybody would say..." Something like that. But that is irrelevant. Redirecting the response in anyway is not a legitimate answer, unless done so sarcastically. There is no strawman, and your argument is unsound.
Your example is essentially my example. I'm not exactly sure if that question has a religious undertone and therefore a standard answer. But at face value, the response is unhelpful at best to the original answer. If not you, ten the billions of other people mentioned in the question, of course.
I'm here to lynch mafia too. Unfortunately, we aren't told who the mafia are. I don't expect us to be effective at finding mafia if no arguments go down, as you seem to be suggesting you want to happen.
