That post you quoted isn't even part of my actual reasoning for pushing implosion as scum, and I think that should be eminently clear if you're actually reading what I'm saying. 484 is an entirely fair criticism of implosion's push on me and you don't even bother trying to explain what's wrong with it (because there is no argument). I have made it very clear that I do not believe his vote on me here comes from a town thought process. You're not actually engaging with the substance of what I'm saying.In post 545, Val89 wrote:Then there is the shitpush on implosion. He wants us to buy that implosion is making a bad-faith, non-genueine push onhim, while also making posts like this:
How else I am expected to take a post like that, other than "please give me towncred for not using something I don't actually think is NAI to push implosion, but I'm still going to point out the thing I think is NAI, and maybe someone else will think it's scum-indicative." That's one example. 484 is another. I think someone is making a bad-faith shitpush here, but it isn't implosion.In post 510, catboi wrote:could make a snide comment about the proofreading fail on that post being scum-indicative, but that's over the top and i don't actually believe that
VOTE: Catboi
And again, you think I just slam back at the person who's mostly universally townread as scum? That trying to flip him with a "shitpush" is likely to succeed?