No, my accusationWalnut wrote:No, this is simply not true. I accused you of following in post 313; I acknowledged that I had overlooked Phily's lack of posting in post 319.
Irrelevant. The point is, rather than using evidence that you had when you made the case, you brought up something new (which was, coincidentally, not good evidence in the least, which I assume you agree on since you never countered that argument?), and tried to play it off as evidence of my following.Again, simply not true. I was not setting out to prove it; you said it was an overgeneralisation, and rather than go back and point out all of the previous posts where it had happened, I said "Look, you are still doing it- take your most recent post as an example". The evidence was there from throughout the game.
This suggests that you tried to find evidence to fit the case, rather than actually recognizing a legitimate trend. I think that if you had been making a solid argument, you would have pointed to the evidence that led you to believe I was following.
I concede the point that I did not see the connection to strawman, while there is a connection. Yes, my analysis of your bad evidence does not disprove my following.Do you know what strawman means? Apologies if I seem to be repeating myself, since you didn't seem to read it the first time. You started off by saying (paraphrasing) "By following, you mean...". You continue by saying "following is usually ..." and "in general, following is ...". In doing so, you have made an initial assumption that is wrong (whether intentionally or not), and from there proceeded off down the wrong path. The result is that you have not disproved my argument- you have not even addressed it. In post 319 (prior to your strawman) I expanded on "following" by saying
However, the blame is laid on me for "strawman" in this scenario, why? You accused me of following. I asked you for evidence. You used bad evidence, I disproved it.
I was not avoiding the issue of following, you just failed to make a case that actually addressed the entire issue. Don't pin the blame on me.
Alright, finally you do an actual case. This time I will argue against the entire case you make,
Post 10 and 37 are obv not important.
Post 47: Philly's comment was that he noticed a trend of last voters being scum. Trends like that are disproved by more valid trends, therefore it was logical for me to comment on it even though others had, as it gave more evidence to Philly's idea not being a legitimate trend.
Post 48: *Buzzer* WRONG. Magnus had asked Nocmen who he thought was scum and why. I asked an entirely different question, specifically what he felt was a better strategy than random voting.
Post 52: Wrong again. Magnus is querying Nocmen about who he thinks is scum. I am responding to Nocmen's response to
Post 66-72 are as you described them.
Post 69: Yep.
Posts 94-125 are V/LA, as you mentioned.
Post 137 and 138: I do not see how you find that to be "by nature" expressing similar views as others. I spent some of it pointing out that Magnus was being honest about his strategy (which no one else could have said, since only I know him in person), and then asked questions of you and Dour which had not been brought up before. There were two, maybe three opinions I made in the PBPA which were arguably "following," but out of 17 posts I analyzed, that's hardly significant.
Post 145: Yes.
Post 149: You are really trying to add "misrep" onto the list of suddenly appearing points against me, aren't you? However, this was not misrepresentation at all, as a quick glance at the post should show.
Post 166: Yes, this is the only arguable evidence I have noticed thus far of "following." I have defended myself against this, but to reiterate, my 166 was a direct response to Philly's 158 which really pinged the scumdar hard, and had little to do with Magnus's post. In fact, something else I am noticing, is that Magnus's vote against Philly used one of
Post 173: Hey, you're also ignoring an entirely original inquiry against Dourgrim here, and only mentioning the very last line of my post.
Post 180: Yep.
Posts 200-259 all V/LA, so yeah.
Post 275/276: Catching up, and mostly original, is the real point. Posted my personal opinions on a couple things.
Post 279: Yes, clarification.
So, where is this following that was so common? I see one example of following that is arguable at best. The others were not examples of following. I see no real case here.
Not to mention. 13 of the posts (I grouped the same ones you grouped) that you mentioned were non-V/LA, and of those, you only even accused me of following on four of them. Add that to the one most recent post that you tried to write off as following, and
Assuming that those were good examples (most were not, but let's assume for the sake of this argument), you, who made the argument in the first place, listed nearly 2/3 of my posts as original content. Where do you get off saying that I am usually following?
Misrep is the accusation of the day!Isacc again misrepresents my case as arguing that he was lurking because he was V/LA
No, I didn't misrep. I explained that I was not following, you accuse me of admitting that I was actively lurking (which would logically mean that you find that a scumtell as well, no?) and I countered the accusation by saying that I was V/LA so the accusation is null.
So, there.