My attack on you was not "blatantly wrong". I accused you of opportunism, which is
still
a valid point - you've cast five votes and every vote that you've cast has been on an already existing bandwagon.
Your attitude surrounding your Cerb vote still feels like feigned frustration - that is not something I'm "blatantly wrong" about, that is just the feeling that I get from reading it. You inserted
yourself
into the conversation with Cerb and then starting acting tired of chatting with him, saying things like "Am I really doing this" and "no I'm not doing this" as if Cerb was being sooo ridiculous that you shouldn't have to argue with him anymore.
My third point was that you voted Cerb for disagreeing with you on mafia theory - you've said that I'm wrong about that, but it must be at least somewhat true considering you said this;
↑ Flubbernugget wrote:I'm trying to out-titus titus most likely
bottom line is that if you think scum can't fake logic you're full of shit
oh and a defensive iso but willingness to go on the offense over theory is scummy
which shows that you think Cerb is "full of s***" because he disagrees with you on theory - exactly what I said.
My attack is perfectly valid. What's blatantly wrong is your attempt to carelessly toss my points aside.
Flubbernugget wrote:And there's the scum slip fuck up on someone that's not that hard to make a scum case on anyway.
I think it was a perfectly fair mistake for me to make, you'll note that even Cerb seemed fine with it once I unvoted. Of course you'd disagree because you're suddenly on this "Wicked-sucks" tangent.
I've been confidently town reading Cerb this whole game. Now that I've realized my mistake, that read still stands.
It is weird that you describe Cerb as an easy target when you supported/joined his bandwagon and appear to still suspect him.
Flubbernugget wrote:Even if your attacks are valid they're not sound and logic requires both
This doesn't make any sense.
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take. -Wayne Gretzky"
-Wickedestjr
