In post 2033, Peabody wrote:
Sure. It's here and halfway down.
It was way late, but I did end up sharing why I thought the way I did. I did end up following up on Dave in terms of your and his 1v1. I followed up on Uct based on him vs shinobi. I did not follow up on huntress in thread. I skimmed her, but didn't really see anything which immediately stood out.
You did not follow up on Dave. You stated you would look in-depth at him, not look at my case on Dave, but you yourself ISO and analyze him. This didn't come.
The good thing about you commenting on things so late is that they've already blown over. That is, nobody really cares much about that exchange anymore because it was a *1,000* pages ago.
You said Huntress was scum because you saw an 'aggressive defensiveness' (1007) in her posts. Well, where did you see this? Show examples, explain why you thought this.
In post 2033, Peabody wrote:
Didn't you didn't say I wasn't townreading NPAU? I was frustrated with the wagons. I didn't like either choice. I was flopping back and forth on what I thought of his alignment. I was frustrated I was pinned into one or the other, so I said in my exasperation that both were probably town. I said what I said, hoping he would flip scum. Part of me did entertain the thought he was town, however, and I know you'll probably jump on this as being an inconsistancy.
It's not about what I said, it's about what you said. Look;
In post 995, Peabody wrote:
NPAU... I just don't see the NPAU case. Vote hopping isn't scummy to me at all.
You're damn right I'm gonna jump all over that as inconsistency because that's exactly what it is. You were trying to get town-cred from NPAU's lynch, you had absolutely no reason to suddenly start town-reading NPAU when you voted him.
In post 2033, Peabody wrote:
I decided he was town. Now he's null. No, I didn't full on analyze him. I analyzed him based off of your 1v1. Which made me feel content on it at the time. Also, keep in mind I said that right before I reached peak apathy and didn't post for a few days.
Yeah, you're not getting out of this with the reasoning of being apathetic. You said in 1095 that you would look at Dave in-depth, this didn't happen. You merely commented on my case on Dave, not Dave himself, my case on Dave and moved on.
In post 2033, Peabody wrote: BBT, why, when you scum read Wisdom, are you gunning for my lynch now? Why did you wait until Wisdom said he could be wrong about me? Why were you talking to me like I was town when I accused you of being scum?
What does me previously scum-reading Wisdom have to do with you? Wasn't it you who pointed out I was 'pretending' to scum-read Wisdom? Did you think I was setting you up for a fall? You're awfully paranoid.
What does Wisdom saying he could be wrong have to do with you? Hell, would it not have been easier for me to just jump along for the ride when Wisdom was scum-reading you? This question makes no sense.
Those questions are filler. Serious filler.
