Dourgrim wrote:magnus_orion wrote:What do you mean haven't refuted to your satisfaction? I asked you to present the facts, and post my posts where I "lied" and show where you say I lied through emphasis, and then show how it conflicts with the facts. You never proceeded to do this. If what you claim about me is true, then you should be able to. So why don't you?
I have pointed out on more than one occasion where you've lied. To sum up: you omitted emphasis in a quote in an effort to change the meaning of the original post, and you tried to take credit for our initial exchange because you asked the first question, when in actuality it was
my
vote on
you
that provoked the exchange in the first place. Do you remember these statements being made in the thread? You flippantly dismissed them as "semantics" because you couldn't directly refute them, but the fact remains that you lied twice, and you have no defense. And now you're lying about me not proving where you lied.
magnus_orion wrote:Also, I'll note that you refuse to post analysis on other players. Why don't you? Your excuse is ridiculous, posting a case on me does not interfere with you commenting on other players. Unless, of course, you're scum afraid of alienating players from your wagon against me, in which case, you'd have a perfectly legitimate reason for not posting on other players as a result of making a case on me.
I haven't done a full analysis of the other players, you're right, and that's something I've been trying to work up. Unfortunately, I keep getting distracted by you. Perhaps I should just start ignoring you, since you seem to be ignoring what I actually say in the thread (I assume because it doesn't fit into your neat little pigeon-hole preconceptions).
magnus_orion wrote:As for a case against you, you did something, which I already explained, and as a result, I think you're scum. And I'm going to continue to think you are scum until you do something that makes me change my mind.
If you're going to force me to repeat my case again and again in the thread as to why you're a liar, you could at least have the common courtesy to return the favor by clearly and concisely presenting your case against me again. Or would that interfere with your "HoS"-ing of the rest of the players in the game?
I will attempt to post an in-depth analysis of every other player in the game within the next 24 hours, if for no other reason than I'm sick of listening to magnus babble.
I dismissed them as semantics because you couldn't directly support that your interpretation of my post was correct. (Because its not. Otherwise, since you are "sick of me babbling" about it, you would have gone back, picked out the post where I say something along the lines of, "I started this conversation." as opposed to the actual post where I say something along the lines of "I engaged you in the conversation." The problem being, I can engage in a conversation without starting one.) The "lies" that you use for your case are nothing more than what I'm trying to say conflicting with what your interpretation of what I said.
So, my defense is that your attack is founded upon false premise, namely, that what I was trying to say matches your interpretation of what I said. Hence, semantics, because it is just a matter of word choice.
So my "flippant dismissal" is backed up by explanation, which has not been discounted, since your only response has been, "no it isn't, I've already proven that not to be the case." So if you are right, then you sould be able to prove that this isn't the case.
And its about time, I look forward to hearing what you have to say about the other players.
My case against you is as follows:
dourgrim wrote:I'm still pretty happy with where my vote is, especially considering Walnut's observation above.
I consider this a scumtell. Scum like to lean back, and say, "oh this person said this. I agree, thus, my vote on this other person is legitimized" They want to be able to vote for people they consider to be mislynchs, and then make sure their vote on the person is valid from a town perspective.
And then I suspect that your tunneling on me is an attempt to avoid making definite statements that you'd have to change on later dates to get your mislynches. (Which is why I look forward to your points on other players)
That's the gist of it.
Now this is the whole convincing people thing that I can't do... Obviously this case (if you really even want to call it that) is based on personal bias about things I consider scumtells, which don't meet the norms of what most people consider scumtells.
Since I'm not appealing to normal scumtells, there is less chance that my arguement will do anything other than provoke reaction from the other person, which is fine, because I'm not out to trick everyone into listening to me anyway, since that's what scum do. On the contrary, I prefer them to reach their own conclusions. Which isn't to say they aren't allowed to agree with other people, since that is ridiculous, but more along the lines of people shouldn't solely try and support their arguements through another person's interpretation.
