it made sense to me. it actually still does. I know it is a weak argument, but it does make sense. I didn't have any better arguments at that time, so even a weak argument was enough to vote. and [weak] ≠ [nonsense]Robbnva wrote: ok... now you tell me what's so dreadful about that post. - your argument about my vote really did not make sense
DING DONG! BULLSHIT ALARM! BULLSHIT ALARAM! DING DONG!then you tell me how suggesting a vig kill is scummy. - what if he kills the wrong person like cop or worse the doc, that is basically what you want him to gamble with
in your post 295 you say:
and, if I remember correctly, you are voting for taz. wtf? aren't you "gambling" too?Robbnva wrote:I actually agree with tasky, use the kill on tazaro
I know my gut feeling was right there. even if my case was weak. you are definitely scum. I am extremely serious about this. this kind of contradiction clearly shows that you just want to throw dirt on me. you do not want to hunt scum by analyzing posts and so, you say things to discredit people for the sake of discrediting.
lol. you were of a quite different opinion earlier. (*)also declaring me scummy with no reason is actually scummy. you still have not provided a valid reason why you think I am scum.
I also really like how you answered my two "easy" questions while totally dodging the "hard" one, the one which you cannot answer to, because it exposes ZeroFang's crap-argument:
since you are trying to answer for ZeroFang, answer this.Tasky wrote: and then you tell me where I "tried to absolve [myself] of any responsibility".
and last but not least, why do you need to respond to questions that I asked ZeroFang.
as soon as you flip scum, I'll definitely keep my eye on ZeroFang...
Robbnva, you need to be todays lynch.
UNVOTE: VOTE: Robbnva