↑ DOMO wrote:I dunno, I was simply mocking your idea of scumhunting.
Kinda agree with this assessment of what Shiny and a few others are doing here. It's not really helping the group accomplish anything to just make unfounded assertions. There is no reason to believe anyone when they don't offer reasons.
↑ KittyCupCake wrote:Right... so do you have anything to
support
any of that? -As a lawyer, you should understand the concept of "evidence."
Of course I do, and I gave it, and it was well-received by some people. And of course you don't accept it. It's a case on you. Duh. Now please stop whining. If you think you can distinguish yourself and make people have a reason to townread you, you could try actually contributing something of value to the game.
Is it just me, or does anyone else see a blatant contradiction in attitude between these two statements? (I care about objections to wagons vs. how dare you object to wagons)
It is just you. Or rather, only you are trying to misrep what I said like that. I did not say "how dare" anyone anything. I said that if someone is going to attack someone else's case, they ought to have some of their own to contribute. This is a lesson that you, like the others I was talking to before, seem to need to learn.
↑ DOMO wrote:And that's a scum tell is it?
In my experience, it's most often an accusation to discredit someone who is pointing out very obvious flaws in a person's case. "White knighting" someone usually translates to "pointing out why you're wrong" about that person.
