Here's your first response:
dedoporno: I haven't used the change as something incriminating, just listed it as one of the things that made me raise my eyebrows.
Then I replied with:
HijacK: Also, your point is invalid still. There is no precedent for what you're implying, and it seems with no lynch you became desperate to grip on straws.
A rather weak point form me since while the precedent does not fit the suspicion, it doesn't mean it fits otherwise. Which brings me to my point. I would've dropped it right then and there, if a few posts later hadn't you replied with:
dedoporno: Once again, I listed my choices and the reasoning behind them, because I believe this is better than keeping quite and waiting for the deadline to force us making a move.
Once again? I'm fairly certain you dismissed my claim that your points about me are faulty on the basis they are things that made you "raise your eyebrow." Yet "once again" you tell me you listed your choices with the
reasoning. Reasoning right there is a strong word. If mere observations are reasoning, I'm wondering how did you not jump on every single player so far who did something faulty.
Then I replied with:
HijacK: When I confronted you about my tone as something potentially incriminating you shoved it off as just an observation, yet here you stand in this post explaining how that was in fact reasoning for a list of candidates. How come you contradict yourself?
What exactly am I missing here? Since when is observing the same as reasoning and an observation the same as a reason? I can check the dictionary if you want.
dedoporno: I'm not. I don't know why you see it that way or try to make it look like that. I haven't "shoved off" anything, but it is indeed an observation. This observation serves as an argument, as flimsy as it may be, to why I would consider you if pressed by time. I feel like you are trying to twist my words to discredit what I'm saying.
You do? Check the above argument that I've made.
dedoporno: I guess this is somewhat understandable since I have introduced you as a possible votee (is that a word?), but you seem to be getting a bit too defensive for something as small as an observation that should be discarded based on previous game experience.
I haven't tried to discard the observation, I've tried to discard it in the condition in which you used it as a reason. While the precedent argument is not strong by any means, I still think this "reason" is not only faulty, yet very suspicious. It seems to miss the forest for the individual trees.
dedoporno: I said I have doubts about you and I suddenly became non-town (not sure if I was something else prior).
Given the fact I haven't shared any of my beliefs regarding the game, how do you know you "suddenly became"? You don't. So I don't see the point you're trying to make here.
dedoporno: This looks kind of OMGUSy.
Then let's call every single time I dismissed and bashed the points others tried to make about me as OMGUSy, shall we?
dedoporno: What will happen if others say they feel the same way? All anti-town?
Depends on what I actually think. Of course, take in consideration the context of the conversation. Not town = neutral, aka fence sitting, or scum.
This, and if I really thought everyone who tried to discredit me was anti-town, ddickinson and JMich would've had a vote on them for a long time now.