You can quit with the condescending crap you're giving to mollie, because your argument is
really
hard to parse.
There's a
lot
of underlying resentment evident in your posting (
Post 115 and
Post 127 just to name a couple) so that is undoubtedly effecting the dynamic here.
Post 129 is the heart of your argument and the post you repeatedly cite in your later arguments with farside and mollie. Evaluation of the individual premises along with your apparent opinion of farside don't support your conclusion.
The first point, "#121 was needless fanning of flames." is unclear since I'm not sure what metaphorical "flames" are being "fanned." From the context, I'm guessing you're saying farside's snarky response to Fourtrouble's townreads was scummy. I suppose you
could
argue that there's a closed-mindedness about it that's scummy, but if you look at the activity leading up to
Post 121 there are requests for opinions from Fourtrouble or comments about how Fourtrouble should contribute:
Post 25,
Post 94,
Post 111, and
Post 117. In light of Fourtrouble's ensuing minimalist posts,
Post 119 and
Post 120, a snarky response makes sense. It likely originated from frustration which is independent of alignment and therefore seems as likely to come from town as scum.
None of what I just talked about bothers me, though. Where I get hung up with
you
is regarding how aware you are of biases and how they reflect in your farside read.
Post 132 tells me you're very aware of how farside is and I think you said you played 3 games with her at one point. That's quite a few.
The second point is that she avoided "ABR/Gothic stuff." I'm assuming you're talking about the exchange starting on page 2. This doesn't seem to be a particularly useful indicator of alignment because the premise it's built on, that scum are more likely to "avoid" a particular conversation, is never proven. The foundation the argument is built on doesn't exist. The third point, "#126] is more discredit without attempting to figure out motivation." is based on your subjective interpretation of
Post 126 which are influenced by the biases that obviously exist. As someone who doesn't know about you and farside's history, my opinion is that there's nothing particularly prejudicial in post 126 that would effectively work towards "discrediting" you to most of the players in this game.
Where I'm getting hung up with
you
is regarding how aware you are of the biases that play into your treatment of farside. From
Post 132 and the fact you played 3 games with her, I would think you'd be well aware. You absolutely
insist
that tunneling has nothing to do with your case, but when you take that away the case doesn't really make sense.
What is the no-bullshit core of the farside case?
