OK - yes, in
35 I'm interested in his alignment but not in the sense of what you thought of his alignment - I'm interested in what his intentions with the vote are which would help see his alignment. I don't mention UCV's alignment, only that I think it's believable he made a serious vote when we might have been dismissing it as a nonserious vote because most people would think it is.
I don't see what the relevance of whether or not we're lynching or wagonning him has on this since the only point of discussion was nor do I understand why you're sticking to this detail. The only thing that was brought into question by me in 30 - 35 were UCV's intentions in voting Intern - who was wagonning or lynching is a non-sequitur.
146 doesn't make sense as a response because UCV's vote being serious doesn't rely on people's agreement with UCV's theory, nor does whether or not you're wagonning/lynching UCV matter.
with
156 on, I'm trying to understand why you would think it's unbelievable for the vote to be serious because your response implies that everyone is approaching the game the same way when that's not the case. I was trying to respond to you in good faith because I still had that feeling of being on a different plane and wanted to see if anyone else would notice if I didn't call it out while I still scumread Flubber.
Hopkirk wrote:@Kat: Bit I’m concerned about with Sheepy is that he said he saw both sides of it but didn’t really solve the issue by pointing out I’d misread monkey’s UC read, or trying to get us to understand each other. Though given 235, that could easily be from town too. I also like a lot of other stuff from Sheep.
your concern seems like something he'l address when he's reading closer - if i recall correctly he said he was posting while in class. from how he's responded to the thread so far (going back and forth on our conversation for example) it's also kind of clear he's not reading that closely.
i dont really know if that's enough to drop him from a townread to a nullread
