It would have been fine if you had made that argument on page 73, Bookitty. But I've gone over all of those arguments; your post is merely reorganizing them then making further unsubstantiated assumptions.
Simenon argues that he thought I was scum. His own statements are that he "was voting Bookitty because she is one of the masons", that he doesn't understand why Niv didn't object to the lynch before I claimed, and that I outed Ether by claiming. Now, I didn't speak to Simenon or Niv during nighttalk, so I don't know on what he is basing his viewpoint. Ether clearly didn't pass along the comments I'd asked her to, so whatever information Simenon and Ether shared was just between them.
Problem: Simenon thought I was scum.
Argument: Niv didn't think I was scum.
Response: I checked with Ether, I posted something to Ether, and I communicated with ether for a reason: I thought you were scum. We have at least four masons in this group. Why couldn't I have simply talked to Ether? Besides, this is confirmable. Ether, did I talk to you about my suspicions of booboo? Niv, Did i talk to you about my suspicions of booboo? See, look, if they answer their questions, your argument falls to pieces.
Already responded? Check
His first comment (and he had not unvoted at this time) was "Bookitty, that was a horrible, horrible claim." Look at the tone, there. Does that seem like someone who thought they were addressing scum? It sounds more like someone scolding town for what they saw as a bad play, to me.
Problem: Simenon scolded me about claiming
Argument: The tone of his post suggests someone talking to someone town.
Response: In my post, it is obviously assumed that "if you are town" precedes that comment. It makes no sense to me to have to say "if you are town if you are town if you are town" before every comment that I make.
He stated this, in saying I was responsible for outing Ether: "You did, although indirectly. You gave a damn good reason for me to check my "logic" with ether." How? By defending myself? By trying my best not to out the masons while going along with what I believed to be a gambit on Simenon's part to out scum? What precisely was a "damn good reason" to talk to Ether in thread?
Problem: Simenon says I outed Ether.
Argument: I did not out ether, in fact I tried not to out ether.
Response: You can't answer this one with a question, bookitty. You don't necessarily need to claim mason to defend yourself. You don't out masons while trying your best not to out masons. And I think catching scum is a good enough reason.
Already responded: check.
Simenon wrote: "What I don't understand, Niv, is why you didn't object to the lynch before bookitty claimed." Why would he expect this of Niv, when he stated this as well: "I haven't talked to Niv since he went on about ignoring his pms." Additionally, why would he want Niv to object to the lynch, if Simenon thought I was scum? How would Niv outing me be better than my claiming?
Problem: Simenon does not understand why Niv did not object to the lynching of a mason until after the mason claimed.
Argument: Simenon also says he has not talked to Niv.
Response: You are taking both quotations out of context. My quotation addressing Niv had to do with Niv's reaction after the mason claim. My second comment was addressing why Niv did not also join in with ether and me in wagonning you.
Already responded? Check.
None of his statements make any sense if he believed I was scum. His entire premise rests on the belief that I would sacrifice myself rather than claim... not a premise that makes any sense, but even less sense if he really thought I was scum.
Argument: Simenon's entire premise rests on the belief that I would sacrifice myself rather than claim.
Response: My entire premise does not rest on the belief that you would sacrifice yourself rather than claim. If that was the case, I wouldn't be voting you BEFORE you claimed.
Already responded: kind of.
Why, if he thought I was scum, would he scold me for claiming? ?
Problem: Simenon scolded me for claiming.
Argument: Simenon wouldn't have scolded me for claiming if he thought I was scum.
Response: But I ended up taking it back! This would have been a perfect argument before page 74, but this is no longer relevant.
Already responded? Check
Why would he move his vote off me, when neither of his other mason partners had done so?
Problem: Simenon moved his vote off me when neither of his mason partners had done so.
Argument: Simenon shouldn't have moved his vote off me when neither of his other mason partners had done so.
Response: Doesn't mean anything. The fact that my partners haven't moved off of you just means we had a reason to vote you in the first place.
All of Simenon's arguments make a sort of broken sense, if you assume that Simenon is scum, trying to push the lynch of one of his mason partners, knowing I was town and hoping I'd be lynched before I claimed
Argument: Simenon's arguments make sense if he was scum.
Response: If I was scum, I wouldn't make arguments that make sense if I was scum.