kabenon007 wrote:Vollkan wrote:Ohh of course. So, before I ask you to clarify, you say it is 358 "almost word for word" - but now it turns out that all you are referring to is me accepting someone else's argument in the end. And that's obviously scummy.
You blow things way out of proportion. I said, you may recall, it isn't that big of a deciding factor for me. It just didn't help. It was like another little rock added to a boulder, or some other such metaphor.
Let's go back to #245 by you:
Kab wrote: I agree with JDodge on this one. Vote: vollkan. You are in fact dodging questions with your long posts that can seem contentful but shirk around the important stuff sometimes, by preventing reactions. Reactions to the words written on this thread are, in my opinion, the most telling of all the information we have. Okay, so it's not quite THAT important, but it's pretty high up on the list. And your stepping in did in fact hamper those reactions, and therefore the information given to the town.
And plus, you are acting way too close to our first game. It's almost word for word.
I've bolded the comments you make linking this to Newbie 358. Here, you make no mention of the extent to which you suspect me based on Newbie 358. You say my play here matches "almost word for word" my play in a game where I was scum. That's a pretty powerful accusation to be making. And, I am not being facetious and literal-minded about "almost word for word" - without getting into a semantics debate, you strongly suggested a high degree of similarity between this game and Newbie 358.
Now, after I question you on this issue (as well as examining the other points you make) you then explain the reference in this way:
kabenon007 wrote:@Vollkan- The last time we played, I said something, you attacked me long and hard about it, and then, after a little banter, you backed off. Someone pressed you for backing off suddenly and acting as if it hadn't happened and then you said basically exactly the same thing as this post:
Vollkan wrote:I've argued here, and JDodge showed me that my adamancy was in error. Mini 542, however, demonstrates that I held my bombast objection in the best of faith.
That may be true, but it is way too close for my taste to just let slip by. That one isn't real condemning, but it is definitely not in your favor.
In an instant, what was a pretty strong accusation (ie. my play here allegedly being similar to my play in Newbie 358) is shown to be an absolute nullity - that I accepted someone else's argument in the end. The comparison you draw is also odious on a further level because I am nowhere near acting as if nothing had happened or trying to shirk from responsibility.
Also, the fact that you say this factor is just a rock onto a boulder doesn't in any way legitimise it. For one thing, there is no boulder - the point about me being evasive is complete rubbish (my challenge still stands
), and the point about me blocking reactions, whilst a legitimate argument against me, has been presented by you without paying heed to my justifications (which were ultimately proven wrong) for that behaviour.
But, moreover, the comparison point should not even be a "pebble" of an argument because it has no basis. As I have already said, the sole similarity is my acceptance of another's argument (out of interest, could you provide a reference to where in Newbie 358 you are talking about?).
