In post 3747, Thor665 wrote:@Dave - like, here's my conversation with Muffin as I perceived it at the time;
1. I state I find Shiro scummy for the vote switch between Pere and Anen considering how much he talked about each.
2. Muffin asks me to defend that stance.
3. I ask him to look at the posts and tell me if he feels it was a legit switch.
4. He says he counted the number of times each name was mentioned and Pere was mentioned more - and apparently didn't care that, blatantly, there was more Anen conversation than Pere conversation.
5. He then asks me to defend my stance again.
6. At this point he has looked at the posts (by his own admission) and chosen to use an odd metric (number of times a name was mentioned) instead of "oh - look, he posted a whole lot about Anen and almost nothing about Pere" which is the actual situation.
7. I point out that I find his metric dumb.
8. He responds by posting all the comments and noting the size of the posts - that said he is including in the Pere quotes huge sections not discussing Pere, which make them appear larger.
9. At this point I am starting to believe he isn't reading anything and is attacking me weirdly.
10. I point out that the post size compare he did is not legit due to the padding.
11. He claims I am moving the goalposts to quality and again is demanding that I back up my case.
12. I claim I never moved the goalposts and ask him how he came to the conclusion I did.
13. He claims I am moving the goalposts to quality and again is demanding that I back up my case.
14. Other people agree with him.
15. I point out what is obvious if you read the posts - that Shiro talked about Anen far more than Pere and did an unexplained vote move.
16. Everyone claims that my delay in pointing out something that is obvious to anyone who reads the posts is scummy and that muffin's name count thing was somehow a legit reaction because saying "amount they were discussed" is somehow a vague statement that apparently can mean "amount a given word appears in an Iso as opposed to amount of words spent on a given subject"
And here we are.
Where do you think my above narrative differs from reality?.
I think your narrative is either completely missing this post, or very badly misrepping it.
In post 3127, Muffin wrote:
So, yeah. 3 posts seem to be mostly about pere, and 4 mostly about anen, including one that is sort of about both of them. Not to mention if you go through them chronologically there is a clear progression of reads. Do you want to try your pathetically-bad argument again?
In before Thor just restates the same argument ignoring the factual evidence that he is full of shit.
In before "yeah but it's the QUALITY of the mentions, on some subjective scale it's impossible to argue against because I just made it up"
Not only did Muffin adjust his analysis of the number of mentions according to your revised criteria, he also provided a specific analysis of the trend in the quoted posts. "Not to mention if you go through them chronologically there is a clear progression of reads."
You go on to attack him on the last sentence of the post. Which is pointing out, ahead of your reply to it, that the section that I pulled out proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Muffin
Also, you complain that the "filler" in the PereV posts was commentary about you. Which, as scum, you want to discredit.