2. Reaching for straws.Cuetlachtli wrote:Ok I asked you to highlight moments of derision and emotional outburst. Here is what you came up with...nopointinactingup wrote: + Isn't this just full of exagerated emotion or what? You could just have said his argument was flawed because 1> 2> 3> ... I'm just noting how strongly affected you are by his accusation.
+And #175, what I meant was that you don't seem to see anyone as a townread.
+ Lurkers are terrible and the major source of my pain in previous games. So I'm totally for putting pressure on them to produce content.
Exemptions / Already underlined in stock post
forgot and No Scum Hunting
What NoPoint Underlined as "Derisive or an Emotional Outburst":
My Responses are in Italics
1. OMG, your Crap-Logic™ is nauseating.
This is my thesis. Maybe I could have said "Your logic is flawed, here is why" and been less dramatic, but that is my play-style. Regardless, this is probably the most "emotional" part of my post.
2. Reaching for straws.
This is part of my argument on why Ecto's logic was bad. There is nothing derisive or emotional about it.
3. And again, more reaching for straws.
See above.
4. Again this is more Crap-Logic™.
See above.
5. This series of questions are inherently primed for failure.
This is a statement in my argument that is supported by the subsequent text. Nothing derisive or emotional in this statement.
And that is it! I asked you to highlight moments of derision and outbursts of emotion and you came up with ONE borderline emotional statement! Therefore, your point about me being "emotional, contemptuous, or derisive" is moot. You and other players are welcome to try again.
This is part of my argument on why Ecto's logic was bad. There is nothing derisive or emotional about it.
OH Yes there is.
--> If you think Ecto's logic was bad, it doesn't mean it IS bad so accusing others of reaching for straw is completely disregarding the opinion of others = derisive. You COULD HAVE just said you disagreed with Ecto's flawed logic.
3. And again, more reaching for straws.
--> See above
4. Again this is more Crap-Logic™.
--> See above + repetition
5. This series of questions are inherently primed for failure.
This is a statement in my argument that is supported by the subsequent text. Nothing derisive or emotional in this statement.
--> You don't call someone's post a failure when you don't mean to deride someone.
It depends on each person's viewpoint Cuet. Obviously you are too stubbornheaded to admit that you acted all emotional so you try to explain it as it sees fit for you. It is not just your wording that made me think you were emotional but also your repitition of those phrases.
2> You forgot to mention that you were saying the nulls are likely to be scum
. I'd say your arguments are inherently primed for failure, pun intended.
--> You don't call someone's post a failure when you don't mean to deride someone.
It depends on each person's viewpoint Cuet. Obviously you are too stubbornheaded to admit that you acted all emotional so you try to explain it as it sees fit for you. It is not just your wording that made me think you were emotional but also your repitition of those phrases.
But the point is that pretty much added comtempt and emotional responses to your argument, which makes it sounds overdramatic.+ Isn't this just full of exagerated emotion or what? You could just have said his argument was flawed because 1> 2> 3> ... I'm just noting how strongly affected you are by his accusation.
I did say Ecto's argument was flawed because 1> 2> 3>. Please reread my post carefully. Actually, before you reread my post, read Ecto's ISO 0, 7, and 8 so you know what I am refuting.
Backpedalling my ass. Calling every player a scum = has no town read. AND AGAIN, I DID NOT ACCUSE YOU OF CALLING EVERY PLAYER SCUM, get that in to your stubborn head.+And #175, what I meant was that you don't seem to see anyone as a townread.
Your backpedaling and straw man fallacies are noted. There is a big difference from what I actually did in post #175 (or Cuet ISO 14) and what you accused me of doing. In other words...
1>1. You accused me of this:Calling every player scum.
2. On the other hand, this is what I actually did:Call five players scum, and give null reads on the rest.
Now you are saying that post #175 was fishy because I didn't give any town reads?! Since when should a town player be required to give town reads? At the time of that post, half the players in the game had posted little to no content. I think my null reads were justified because of that.
2> You forgot to mention that you were saying the nulls are likely to be scum
Point out where I said it was fishy. Here I'll do it for you:Cuetlachtli wrote:
Now you are saying that post #175 was fishy because I didn't give any town reads?! Since when should a town player be required to give town reads? At the time of that post, half the players in the game had posted little to no content. I think my null reads were justified because of that.
And as to your argument about me being a popularity guy:nopointinactingup wrote:Cuet: His #72 is terrible. I'd expect a town to play on either side of OGMUS-ing or responding lazily. Instead, he retorted with an emotional outburst. His arguments are okay, but the unnecessary amount of derision and makes me think there's also scum harboring hatred towards his attackers in his reply.His #175 is basically calling everyone scum,. However, it could be a gambit and Cuet stays 2nd on my suspect list.which I do not think a scum would really do
Cuet is unlikely connected to Ecto.
I have my own opinion too sir. And you conveniently left out that sentence in your ISO to blindly pursue your point. So I'd say your entire case is flawed, very flawednopointinactingup wrote:*roll eyes*I hate to argue with you if it's emotional or not because obviously you will just argue on and on.But to me, the repition and wordings do look like an emotional outburst.( as it looks for anybody else besides you)
And as for your scum reads. Did you even notice I'm not accusing you of it?! I even said the fact that you have no town read implies that you are town. You are freaking over your head being paranoid if you are town and are digging your own grave if you are scum.
. I'd say your arguments are inherently primed for failure, pun intended.
