Anyone other than Chaco could probably just skip this post, there isn't really any content in this post, I just want Chaco to actually answer the questions I'm asking rather than giving me answers I'm not interested in to questions I'm not asking in their place.
Chaco, you seem to think that you answer questions when in fact, you are not directly answering the question being asked.
For example, if I asked "Do you ever play hockey on Sundays?" The answer to this question would be either "yes" or "no." If you answered "I play hockey all the time, it's a really fun sport." then you are not answering the question. While this may be nice information, I still wouldn't know whether or not you ever play hockey on Sundays.
Now let's use an example from our exchange:
semioldguy: Do you ever find people to be scummy that you have no read on?
Chaco: I rarely have no read, and when I do it is early on D1. Scum slips and tells change my read to scummy. What you are saying makes no sense.
Now, if I was asking any of "how often do you have no read?", "At what times do you have no read?", "what changes your reads to scummy?" or "Does what I'm saying make sense to you?" then you would have answered my question brilliantly. However, from your answer I still don't know whether you ever find people to be scummy when you have no read on them.
So I asked again. to get this response:
Chaco: And again I will say, I form an opinion. So I guess I'll say no because, once they do something scummy that attributes to a read.
Holy crap, you answered the question... kind of. Okay... so no,
you don't find them scummy when you have no read on them
. Great! Oh then you come with this gem:
Chaco: I explained the way I did it, that's better than a yes or no answer. Only using Yes or No limits my reply to only something you want to hear.
Better than a yes or no answer?!? While you gave me much more information than a yes or no would have given, only "yes" and "no" are answers to the question. (
and maybe saying 'I never once in my life had no read on any player, ever" because it would get at something false within the question. however. this isn't the case as you admitted in your answer that you only rarely have no read, not never
). While limiting it to "yes" and "no" actually does limit your reply to what I want to hear, the only thing I actually want to hear is an answer to the question. Unless, of course, not answering questions is considered better than answering them.
You didn't want to answer the question because your reply is only something I want to hear? Should I only ask questions that I don't want to hear the answer from? That wouldn't be very productive. I mean... I am only asking the question in the first place because what I want to hear is an answer. That's kind of the point of asking questions. Otherwise, why ask questions at all?
Now for the next question you've so expertly dodged:
semioldguy: Even if I were lying about having no read on dramonic, which I am not lying about, why would that be scummy?
I'm not really sure what exactly you thought was an answer, so I'll just lump all of it in there and show you why it isn't.
Chaco: Liars get lynched. Plus, I am trying to understand your "No read" + "He's not scummy to me" combination. They don't parallel. And as you said, I am trying to get to the context of it, but you're going into a turtle shell.
We'll just start with part one. Nice, you are trying to understand the combination, or at least are claiming to. What have you done to try? I have shown you a way that they do parallel, or at least I claim that they do. Then it goes to your turn. If you don't think they do, you need to show why my example doesn't parallel. You need to prove it wrong. Just saying it doesn't work gets everybody nowhere and proves nothing. Effort is needed. You don't keep your job by saying you'll show up to work on time every day, you keep it by proving that you do.
As for trying to get to the context... the context is already there. We are now past the context. To look at the context you must on your own examine the part of the game immediately surrounding my post and what my post means in conjunction with other posts made up through that point. Though maybe you're just confused with what I meant by context.
Let's get to part two....
Chaco: Town can do scummy things yes. So you're saying we can pass you off as town because you did something scummy? No, I'm trying to get to the bottom of something and you're shelling up on me with a wall of useless post whining because you're under scrutiny.
Hmm... I don't remember saying that I could be passed of as town for doing something scummy. Heck, I don't even think I did something scummy since I know I'm not lying. If anything I am supporting the opposite, that nothing should be passed off. That everything needs to be looked or thought further into to determine a judgment. Yes, and you are not whining at all in comparison to me and your wall posts are also not useless. That was sarcasm in case you were unaware. Our posting between each other has been equally useless to the town from both parties. However, I am attempting to use evidence and example to prove my side... oh, you aren't doing any of that? What are you trying to do in your posts again? Tell me I'm wrong? Well, if you won't give me a reason with examples or evidence that I am wrong, I am inclined to believe my own examples over you... uh... nothing.
After all, I know what I am thinking and you don't. So who are you to tell me how I think about stuff?
I'm such a good lover because I practice a lot on my own.
But apparently it is.