Jump to content

TV Mafia: Signup and Game Thread-Day three Ends at 9 PM Eastern Saturay


bcb1213

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, SwAg said:

Also:  It is literally your argument.  Remember?  We debated the merits of the definition of plausibility?  Only mention since you seem mighty keen on definitions, which awkwardly substantiate what I said.

 

2 hours ago, SwAg said:

This reads like a concerted effort to save Orca.

 

2 hours ago, theuntouchable said:

Except the votes are all very close and the only contrived theory out there is how youre being framed. 

 

2 hours ago, SwAg said:

I’m glad you think my theory about you and Orca is reasonable.

 

2 hours ago, theuntouchable said:

I don’t ever see fault in a logical theory. 

Doesnt mean it’s right, but it at least has good roots. 

 

2 hours ago, SwAg said:

Touch, you’re gaslighting.  

You went through a whole angle hedging and equivocating, then went for me when Malfatron was signaling, and now you’re trying to save Orca, while accusing Forge of trying to save me, when I really don’t need saved.

Exhibit B: now you’re saying it’s my argument, except you can clearly see that when you postulated you’re initial thoughts they were built on a strong foundation. I even told you as much because they were. There was only one fault in that line of thought you had. 

You originally stated that it read as a concerted effort to save orca. I then point out to you that it’s a very close vote (with low numbers mind you). So for all of this concerted effort to “save orca”, it wasn’t working? Why? Because if I wanted to save orca I would left my vote on you a long time ago. 

Then you made a comment on what I agreed on with you. I pointed out why. 

Then, I’m apparently gaslighting you. So again, how is this MY argument? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, SwAg said:

No, you didn’t prove that.  You just keep pontificating on your actions and make declarations about game posture before saying I’m missing critical facts.  People can ******* read, you’re doing the most pitiful straw man I’ve ever seen.

Except for the fact that the proof is right directly in the thread? Multiple times? 

Exhibit C of habitually erroneous statements 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

“I didn’t explicitly say it, but the intent and consequence of the posts is congruous with your synopsis, but I need to bang the table on how you’re technically mischaracterizing me.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, theuntouchable said:

 

 

 

 

 

Exhibit B: now you’re saying it’s my argument, except you can clearly see that when you postulated you’re initial thoughts they were built on a strong foundation. I even told you as much because they were. There was only one fault in that line of thought you had. 

You originally stated that it read as a concerted effort to save orca. I then point out to you that it’s a very close vote (with low numbers mind you). So for all of this concerted effort to “save orca”, it wasn’t working? Why? Because if I wanted to save orca I would left my vote on you a long time ago. 

Then you made a comment on what I agreed on with you. I pointed out why. 

Then, I’m apparently gaslighting you. So again, how is this MY argument? 

The tide shifted away from me and suddenly people want to go outside the finite inquiry of Orca and I.  I don’t know what you’re not understanding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, SwAg said:

No, it was an accusation, and I included a synopsis of the facts, but you felt as though it painted you in a poor light, so you’re emphasizing the facts that I only did an overview of because it makes you look better that way, even if seemingly everything thereafter  is contradicted each time you respond to me.

I have literally proven multiple times now that you have continuously missed facts and that I corrected you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And you literally quoted the section where it’s not your argument.  Like forreal, people can ******* read the whole thing.  What I said is within the bounds of an apt interpretation of facts.

Touch/Orca —> mafia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, SwAg said:

“I didn’t explicitly say it, but the intent and consequence of the posts is congruous with your synopsis, but I need to bang the table on how you’re technically mischaracterizing me.”

You literally left out facts in portions of your synopsis. How many more times do I need to show you the evidence of where you missed, what you missed and when you missed it??? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

“Missed facts” I include key facts and try to present a fair perspective while projecting intent and inflection, and I’m missing facts by not giving you a full recitation of facts to remove any negative connotation you may take exception with in the characterization.

I don’t know why you’re so afraid of an association with Orca if you’re so sure he’s Town.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...