It’s not my problem reading comprehension escapes you. In post 77 I questioned your bandwagon vote on me (which was in the same post you proclaim bangwagon hoppers need to go). Then I later say I found the contradiction I pointed out in post 77 suspicious...and that’s not clear enough?Nikanor wrote:Oops, forgot to respond to the first bit by fitz. What I meant to say was that if fitz finds me suspicious, he should make it more clear in the wording of his posts. I've never once caught a vibe that fitz found me suspicious until he said it outright.
Also, here I must include the necessary "If you think I'm suspicious then vote me biatch."
When was I supposed to tell you I found something you did suspicious? Before you had done anything I found suspicious? BTW, you still never answered my question to you in post 77.
And I'll vote for you when you're at the top of my list. Right now your just in the top four or five.
