What? I showed quotes I commented in regards to those quotes. You saying your own words and the post your arguing in regards to EB isn't scummy?
You saying that you are not throwing crap up to see what sticks?
Which is exactly what I see you doing here. Everything is either well you did this. Then when I prove it wrong you come up with some new crap that wasn't part of your case. But please keep digging your own grave. Would you like to claim you scum buddies while we share all our thoughts?
Yes, they showed, in essence things that I said, and then you declared each in turn, ridiculous.
Did you, or did you not, explain a motivation for why scum (and not town) would commit those actions that you have pointed out as me doing.
Then when I prove it wrong you come up with some new crap that wasn't part of your case. But please keep digging your own grave. Would you like to claim you scum buddies while we share all our thoughts?
"Prove" is a very strong word. You've proven very little, if anything, in this game. To prove something is to show that, without any reasonable objection, something is absolutely true.
Being bombastic and disagreeing is not proving something wrong.
How am I throwing things and seeing what sticks? I've made one, and only one, accusation against you. The rest has all been responding to your positions.
farside shows proof of asking question
mag's next attempt to throw a crap case
Farside showed proof of asking a question, yes
Magnus had already said:
(well, he does ask questions, but they serve rhetorical purpose, not inquisitive)
Affirming that I realized you had asked questions, but they were more statements of ridiculousness, not actual questions you intended to be answered.
Back to "mag's next attempt to throw a crap case "
I gave a reason that was independent of you voting me. If I hadn't then, yes, it is a scum-tell, however, if that is not the case, then the OMGUS accusation shouldn't give you a shield from ever being attacked by someone you are voting.
Apparently that's it. I don't see a comment related to this afterwards.
farside shows others who didn't ask question or push conversation
If this is related to the OMGUS, then why didn't I vote them?
But I digress.
magnus rebutle comment:
However, that's still irrelevant, since Jack did not make an attempt to try and convince others of his opinion
Which takes us back to
Instead, its written with a purpose to convince other people to follow his ideas
From "magnus original vote and reason: "
Still seems to think I'm convincing others of their opinion but doesn't show how or why at all.
Then what is the exact next thing you posted?
However, I think that scum would be more likely make cases this early in the game that do not have systems for attempting to continue conversation to gather more evidence. Its simply too early, there is simply too little information, for you not to want to try to gain more and make sure your right.
Surely I needn't quote you in order to explain why or how? There's my explanation, right there.
Shows no evidence of this theory. Continues in the didn't engage comments but clearly we are engaging each other at this point.
Offered to, in the post from which "magnus original vote and reason: " came from. Nobody asked for me to further back it up. This is just a reiteration of my original point, if you didn't get that the first time you read it.
Richard isn't trying to convince people, he's just calling for more people...
Again uses this as his reason but doesn't explain how again
I apologize, I didn't know you were confused on this point, seeing how you never bothered to ask before accusing me with it. Next time you need me to explain something, instead of saying I'm unwilling to offer explanation, merely ask for one, and I will do my best to oblige.
Now then, since I assume you want to know, if I say,
"XYZ is scum, WAGON GO!" I'm not going to have people saying, "That makes perfect sense, I agree completely, 'WAGON GO!' totally convinces me that XYZ is scum, and I should vote for him"
Why? Because "WAGON GO!" offers nothing in the range of logic or reasoning, it is an emotional outburst that does not attempt to assert a defensible position. Does that make sense? If not, be sure to let me know, so I can further elaborate on this.
Basically magnas has lied. Backtrack his thoughts as far as what is scummy about me. Refusing to show any evidence of his reasons that my post is so called "convincing people". Then says my case isn't showing any evidence by throwing a bunch of stuff together and calling it scummy but his case is based on absolutely nothing because Godforbid his own words should be damning enough.
I'm sure he will say I'm convincing people with this post because I haven't seen him present one shred of evidence to contradict my points.
So far anything I have seen anyone present against mangus hasn't been good enough. He down plays the argument made against him as seen in the first quote and has swept the argument to a who can post more at this point.
Arguing that something is obvious by virtue of its existence is a pretty poor argument, so yes, my words aren't damning in and of themselves.
I haven't seen him present one shred of evidence to contradict my points.
*Looks up at post just written....*
Will this be sufficient?
So far anything I have seen anyone present against mangus hasn't been good enough. He down plays the argument made against him as seen in the first quote and has swept the argument to a who can post more at this point.
I apologize for being expedient in my answering your concerns, I see this has offended you, could you please suggest how long I should wait before responding to allegations against my person?
Dattebayo
