In post 740, Three wrote: In post 687, Datisi wrote: In post 664, Three wrote:What changed that made you decide her earlier logic was more sound than you originally thought?
like this annoys me because i never said her logic wasn't sound, she was scum *despite* because surprise, scum can make arguments that are logically sound
In post 688, Datisi wrote:obviously i don't find her as scummy as i did earlier but you see my point
You literally said you hated her posts though? I'm trying to understand how you think her posts make sense but still think she's scummy.
you're not serious.
yes, i said i hated her posts. because i thought they were scum!indicative for aimless questions and barebone solving.
however. she said "if one of wiki/dwlee is scum, the other isn't". that got misrepped as "one of wiki/dwlee is scum". she then claimed that she did not say that. i can understand that her claim of "i did not say that" makes sense, because she did not say that. that doesn't make her town. the fact that she was telling the truth about her previous post doesn't make her town. you do know that scum can sometimes make posts that make sense, right?
In post 740, Three wrote: In post 689, Datisi wrote: In post 664, Three wrote:What do you think she's saying?
I do have other reads, yes.
Can you explain the thought process behind your vote here?
oh my god
so you accused her of pocketing andres, right?
and she said that she finds it nice that you think scum!her would be able to pocket someone
and then you reply with "aha, so you're saying you think you could pocket someone!"
which (1) clearly isn't what she was saying, she was just saying your thoughts are nice and not agreeing with them, and (2) even if she was saying that, how is that a scumclaim? like, i think scum!me here would be able to pocket players like ico or t3, am i now lockscum too?
...What? I never accused her of pocketing Andres. I never accused her of pocketing anyone. She made that pocket comment towards T3, not me. And I didn't say she was lockscum either, hell, I didn't even say "aha, so you're saying you think you could pocket someone!" You're putting words in my mouth and you can easily fact check that. Everything you're accusing me of here factually did not happen.
The only thing I said was ask why she was scum claiming. I clearly interpreted it as scum claiming and asked her to clear it up, and then further explained why I saw it as scum claiming.
okay, that first bit is my mistake, i was rushing this morning and thought
521 was yours, not t3's.
doesn't defeat the rest of my point, however.
539 said "You're saying that you're mafia and that you think you could pocket somebody." i don't know how else to interpret that, considering, again, she did not say that. like, the rest of my post still applies, t3 thought she could be pocketing andres, she said it was nice t3 thought that she could be able to, and you jumped in claiming she was saying she thought that.
and like,
528 is also clearly not her claiming scum. it's a response to your
517, where you both called her read fake, and asked why should you be the one to want her out. her answer was "if you think my read is fake, then shouldn't you think i'm scum?". but you twisted it around into a scumclaim???
In post 740, Three wrote: In post 691, Datisi wrote:my thought process behind the vote is that you keep misconstructing people's arguments to the point i have a hard time believing you genuinely think what you're saying, especially since you claimed you have decent experience. and you seem to have zero reads besides sel. like it reeks of scum who is trying to appear busy by "tunneling" someone, and doing it with godawful arguments too
so what are your reads besides sel?
What argument have I misconstrued? This is the only one you could possibly argue that for and you're just wrong anyway.
I don't have "zero reads", I've already given takes.
How am I trying to appear busy or tunneling when I've been interacting with multiple people and keep getting dragged back to an argument from several hundred posts ago? I moved on yet I keep getting asked to defend my read. You can even see that I stopped talking to Sel about it before you dug it back up again, so I'm not sure what eise you want from me?
Why aren't you accusing Sel or Wiki of the same thing?
sel's "if one of wiki/dwlee is scum, the other is town", "scumclaiming", and "saying she thinks she can pocket". and my "how can you say sel has a decent argument while still thinking she's scum?".
ok, going trough your iso.
- scumreading wiki because unexplained reads
- scumreading then townreading gamma (asking town to towntell/good strategy)
- townreading wiki bc he's probably flailing
- the scumread of sel starts
- scumreading me for parroting t3
- scumreading me for scummy reaction over The Bad Read
- and finally, scumreading salsa
like, i'm sorry, but these aren't that many takes, even if i count the very minor one (gamma) that were given off-handedly over a single post or two. like, you've given takes on 5 people so far. not enough for me to know where your head is holistically.
a different question, why did you decide to vote salsa instead of me? you found both of us scummy. (not saying you're scum for voting her.)
holy shit the pedits, i was on this for way too long.
![:]](./images/smilies/icon_smiling.png "Cheerful Smile"){kind=icon}
