I said "Wow, don't help him any, Fonzie." because he asked kind of a leading question.
His question "Are you saying that by admitting that he doesn't think the behaviour is scummy, he renders his own vote useless?" was leading because, while it is a great point, there was really no evidence of that kind of thinking in Quagmire's post.
Theoretically, The Fonz could be Quag's scumbuddy trying to lead him to a more defensible position. Is that super-likely? Probably not. It's not like Quag was getting that much heat for his position.
But I definitely didn't see the harm in throwing that accusation at The Fonz and seeing what happens.
But with Mr.Jester, I think I have good reason to be voting for him:
Here's what I saw:
First, I vote Mr.Jester in
Post 63
In
post 74, he says this:
Mr.Jester wrote:As for your vote, you have given no justification or reasoning. That's twice you've done this already in a game that's 3 pages long.
Previously, I had voted for Chinaman in
post 48, but my reasons for doing so were in a previous post,
post 45. I presume he overlooked that, saw the post with nothing but "Vote: Chinaman" in it and figured he had me on something.
I post this in
post 78:
Sanjay wrote:Twice? What was the first time? My vote for Cobalt? Because surely you don't mean my vote for Chinaman. Did you miss
post 45? I would expect someone weighing in and commenting on the oddness of the Chinaman wagon to pay more attention to me than that.
Now here's where the scumminess really kicks in:
Rather than just saying "Oh yeah, I missed your explanation", he sets up this truly bizarre argument where because he doesn't think my explanation for why Chinaman was scum is poor it makes sense for him to say I had no justification or reasoning.
I think I nail him with
post 83, and he is never heard from again.
Reread this exchange.
It is more than just semantics.