How did I misrep that you agreed with him? Because that is what your point said there.
In post 133, Slandaar wrote:2. Your opinion but how is this related to overexplaining as you have suggested?
Because you're working hard to have something to say about nothing, and that's why I think you twisted it.
In post 133, Slandaar wrote:3.
You know I think scum can scumslip I think this because they have knowledge town do not and thus they can occasionally slip that information in their posts and then we can catch them because they have released information that they could only have as scum.
You point was still complaining that he wasn't succinct enough when the points you said should be cut were explanation of why he had his belief;
basically he did this;
The fruit is round, red, has white pulp, seeds inside, came from a tree, and has a sweet flavor with some tartness.
I believe it is an apple.
And you then said 'he's *overexplaining*, why not just say he thinks it's an apple, scummy!'
And my counter there is - why didn't you just say 'he's overexplaining' and vote him instead of doing a line by line breakdown of his post (over)explaining how his post is overexplaining?
In post 133, Slandaar wrote:We have had this exact 'debate' before and I was right so what are you trying to accomplish Thor?
To understand your thought process.
We also haven't had this exact debate unless the word exact has a different meaning than I know of. We may have had a similar one, but only insomuch as I have doubtless questioned your logic in the past - other than that I doubt there is any connection to a past debate.
Feel free to prove me wrong.
How do you define the difference?
Then I didn't get the point of the question.
Now that you have my answer anyway...what are you doing with it?
In post 133, Slandaar wrote:Before a game even begins you know we will not agree on logic especially if we are both town and you know that actually all that will happen is wall wars where we just don't come to agreement and want to lynch the other.
During game Thor tries to argue my logic is scummy.
Doesn't make sense
Only if you want to claim that I believe it is impossible to scum read you through analyzing of logic.
Since I believe that is the way to read everyone and is the only type of scumhunting I do, whether or not I have received a bad read on you in the past I am unsure why I would reinvent my entire method just for you in the present.
Thank you.