read: (vt) 4 a. : to attribute a meaning to (as something read) : interpret
like: (adj) 1 a : the same or nearly the same
So, using your handy-dandy definitions, we can roughly paraphrase "It reads like a call to lynch lurkers to me" to "I interpret it as the same or nearly the same as a call to lynch lurkers", no?
Rob why have you unvoted Zchinque aftrer saying this
Unvote Zchinque - i accept the reasoning that as one of the few players to push the game aloing, he shouldn't be voted for. In hindsight, my vote for him was wrong. Unlike many people who play the game, I will admit when my reasoning isn't perhaps 100% (many who have played Mafia with me before will know this happens quite a lot).
I just cant believe lurking is being levelled as a reason for lynching, with the xmas period happening. It stinks of Mafia trying to desperately get a bandwagon formed.
Since we're arguing semantics... Two relevant words: "to me".
"It reads like a call to lynch lurkers to me" is not equivalent to "[...]it is possible to interpret [it] as Zchinque calling for lynching lurkers."
The first says something about how you yourself interpret something, while the second is a general statement about how it is possible for someone to interpret something. In the latter you leave yourself the possibility - or should I say wiggle room - to claim that you personally didn't interpret it in that way.
Oh, nice backtracking by the way.
It was part of a question to Rob, yes, the first part of which I omitted in my original quote. As such you are technically correct to claim that I took the quote out of context. The part I omitted was this:
In other words, I don't see how that part of the question that I omitted changes the meaning of "It reads like a call to lynch lurkers to me" in any significant way. If anything, I'd say it further shows that you meant I was calling for a lurker lynch, when you say "Zchinque is at the very least complicit in this [lurker voting]. calling for any voting at all.".
Also, if you felt I quoted you out of (a relevant) context, why didn't you bring that up in post #308, where you respond to my quote?
In the very same post you even say:
which seems strange, considering you now claim to find the quote which, I iterate, you responded to in the very same post so very scummy?
Or are you perhaps just grasping at straws?
I feel I have answered to that.
Unvote, vote Stuart. If someone wants to misapply OMGUS here, go right ahead.
@Vitek: This is what I meant by the two peas in a pod. In a flash of soothsaying I foresaw us both voting for Stuart in the near future.
Also, unless I'm very mistaken, that puts Stuart at 5 votes (CrazyBear and Red Baron according to the votecount in #312, Vitek in #330 itai in #337, and now me), with 7 to lynch, so I think it's time to ask for a claim. I'm guessing he won't do it to my asking though, so if anyone else feels it's time, please ask.
I hope all the quote tags come out okay... :/