Anyway... obviously you suggesting we ignore VV would cause me to ignore VV (whatever my alignment). I brought it up because of the inconsistency - it's a weird argument for anyone to make (see: rest of that paragraph of 1039), but especially you.
DGB: "The F??? You ask me a question that can only be answered with a WIFOM-BBQ..." - No. I ask you a question with a context that should have been clear from question one. I am trying to find a pattern to your votes, in the context of your pronouncement that "100% of my reads are self-meta projections". You've now backed off that statement a bit ("how I've acted as scum in the past,
[Note that I'm not saying that it was
My last paragraph is disingenuous? How, exactly? Am I fabricating your reaction to the Kmd softclaim, or Elmo's post? There is definitely a disconnect there, and the following is a perfectly plausible explanation: DGB sees that Kmd tracked an innocent Elmo to a corpse, gets giddy that two power roles are outed and one will be lynched, bandwagon-ho without analyzing the situation, uh oh mith pointed out the correct play, DGB backs off Elmo hard at the next convenient time and forgets she shouldn't know tajo was the scum kill. I don't
The next paragraph is just silly. I'm a pretty slow and methodical poster usually - between lunch, shooting hoops, and watching TV, I probably started that post a good two hours before I hit submit; I added the last line (the one agreeing with you - even as scum, you make some good points occasionally) on preview, but the questions were in the post well before I saw your case on zoraster. (Never mind that it would be borderline idiotic for scum-mith to try to discredit a case on a scumbuddy because of a single vote from an erratic player.) But hey, now that you brought up the conspiracy/paranoid thing I guess you've got to stick to your guns.
(FYI: Michelle in town for the long weekend; will be around and posting at least once a day as usual, but probably not spending two hours on any posts.)