alexhans wrote:zwetschenwasser wrote:I take it you didn't read my quoted post last page. My case can be found conveniently in my longest post in this game. See for yourself, don't take my word for it.
Zwet's case on Wall-e, apparently:
zwetschenwasser wrote:Wall-E wrote:From my perspective, it was appeal to logos, not pathos.
You saying so doesn't immediately make it so, Wall-e.
Ok... so?
zwetschenwasser wrote:
I don't have to admit that I'm just as lost as everyone else. It's obvious from the fact that I'm town (empking logic lol)
This is strange. Instead of actually posting something useful you try to shrug off your scumminess with a joke about Empking. Why?
Ok... reasonable doubt. so?
zwetschenwasser wrote:
Seriously, Empking, why do you even play this game?
How is this helpful? Ad hominem has no place here.
true. It's not helpful... is necesarilly it scummy though?
zwetschenwasser wrote:
I conceed that I've done illogical-and-therefore-scummy things in this game.
I haven't actually gotten into the meat of it yet. Most of day 1 is my RVS, to use an innacurate analogy.
Then why don't you give us an accurate analogy?
well... I honestly... I see questions... unanswered, true, but just questions... I think I laid a much better case on wall-e. Still, I'm unsure if it's enough.
I was unaware that they were other than rhetoric. It's hard for me to take zwets seriously, given that he seems not to take himself very seriously.
I was not shrugging anything off. I was answering another person's accusation. Zwets reading comprehension fail 1.
I think that... I'm normally very angsty in these games. In this one, zwets is feeding off that and Empking is being himself, meaning that the game is hard for others to sink their teeth into. The three of us should take a page from some others' books and make one or two posts per page with thought-out points, instead of treating it like a chatlog.
I don't know if that answers any question, but it felt right to say.