The Original Pokemon Mafia - We're all losers.

[SwAg]

That’s what I wanted you to say, since you’re actually soft defending.

[Matts4313]

Just now, SwAg said:

That’s what I wanted you to say, since you’re actually soft defending.

Not doing that either. If you can explain it to me then by all means go ahead. I am not going back to read the old thread; I dont care that much. 

[SwAg]

Well, I already explained my rationale twice, but it’s immaterial.  Malfatron said something baseless, which is that MWil slipped.  There was no slip, and your immediate reaction was to not only demand refinement of that accusation, but you brought forward all of MWil’s posts to show that they were about the last game (and thus, you’re at least mostly aware of the situation from last game, regardless of what you say).  So, you basically headed off anywhere Malfatron might have gone with that before it could escalate for Malfatron’s benefit or detriment, and deprived us the opportunity of MWil responding.

So, yeah, that’s a soft defend.  You’re basically asking what the case is for so-and-so based on what you should know to be nonsense that does not ordain a response.

tk3 in Trailer Park all over again.

[SwAg]

Lock it up, boys, girls, thems.  It’s matts and MWil.  Prepare for trouble and make it double.

[Matts4313]

 

4 minutes ago, SwAg said:

Well, I already explained my rationale twice, but it’s immaterial.  Malfatron said something baseless, which is that MWil slipped.  There was no slip, and your immediate reaction was to not only demand refinement of that accusation, but you brought forward all of MWil’s posts to show that they were about the last game (and thus, you’re at least mostly aware of the situation from last game, regardless of what you say).  So, you basically headed off anywhere Malfatron might have gone with that before it could escalate for Malfatron’s benefit or detriment, and deprived us the opportunity of MWil responding.

So, yeah, that’s a soft defend.  You’re basically asking what the case is for so-and-so based on what you should know to be nonsense that does not ordain a response.

tk3 in Trailer Park all over again.

Or, you know, occam's razor. 

3 minutes ago, SwAg said:

Lock it up, boys, girls, thems.  It’s matts and MWil.  Prepare for trouble and make it double.

Bag'm and Tag'm. 

[SwAg]

That’s not as far from Occam’s Razor as you would like the general reader to infer.  Occam’s Razor is properly invoked when an explanation stretches the bounds of credulity with the sheer amount of coincidences or outlandish pre-requisites relative to a simpler explanation that is equally supported by the facts.

It’s not outlandish or reliant upon coincidences. You’re just looking for an out on a quip.

[theuntouchable]

4 minutes ago, SwAg said:

That’s not as far from Occam’s Razor as you would like the general reader to infer.  Occam’s Razor is properly invoked when an explanation stretches the bounds of credulity with the sheer amount of coincidences or outlandish pre-requisites relative to a simpler explanation that is equally supported by the facts.

It’s not outlandish or reliant upon coincidences. You’re just looking for an out on a quip.

You’re gonna have to go a little slower than that 

[SwAg]

Catch up, Slowpoke.

[theuntouchable]

1 hour ago, Matts4313 said:

Please. Show me where I berated you? I didnt even bring you up, you are the one that started acting like a donkey for god knows what reason.

lol. If you think I actually care enough about you to hold a grudge. I do joke with you from time to time, which I do with everyone. But nothing that deserves this vitriol. 

We know. Do you think saying it the 500th time changes anything?

Which was?

This whole shtick is old. If you refuse to stop I will just put you back on ignore. 

Lol ok 

yes, you do care enough to hold a grudge because you have for well over a year now you imbecile 

it doesn’t need to change anything nor was I looking for it to change anything. Just reiterating facts. 
 

I agreed with you a few times on a subject and then you still wanted to be an asshat after I said I was willing to move on. 
 

it may be old for you. I still laugh. 
 

also, if you didn’t care you wouldn’t respond at all. 

[theuntouchable]

Just now, SwAg said:

Catch up, Slowpoke.

Not for me, I understand what you’re saying but you are using large words. 

[The Orca]

2 hours ago, Matts4313 said:

What are you two going on about?

 

3 hours ago, Matts4313 said:

 

This is an interesting info based on Swags theory a few games ago. 

Thanks for this post, it made me read the rules

Orca - I dont see any reason to go the "woe is me" route to start the game aside from trying to skate by. 

1. Why did that post make you read the rules

2. This is going for low hanging fruit. Where is the skating by and where is the woe is me?

3. I dont know pokemon and wanted a certain class. I used the wiki link and it was not accurate and as such I didnt get that class and got stuck with crap

4. Please explain the woe is me and the skating by aspects and where it occured and how

 

3 hours ago, Dome said:

Orca....

please go back and reread them without some theory you’re trying to work clouding your judgement

open mind, read them again

the first comment is questioning of squire for a factually inaccurate statement about malf. That’s not a defense of malf that’s stating a fact. 

the second is questioning your fake/meaningless vote on malf. That is not any sort of read on malf but a read on you. This is not a defense of malf either.

 

you're 0/2

That is your opinion. From my view, your post to Squire was questioning him and also adding a bit of clarification that paints squires read on malf in a negative light while pushing the question back onto Squire for having a bad read. So in that post you do question Squire, but in no way can you qualify Squires read as false imo (which was the defense of Malf imo by you). Malf doesnt follow all that much and when he does it's usually as scum from my recollection 

The second one, you said you dont like the vote on Malf by me. Calling it cute and fake. Again cutting down the push someone has on Malf by again also pushing back on the person 

Clearly defensive of Malf...boom!!!

1 hour ago, Dome said:

You could've just answered it in the time you used to give excuses for not answering. 

Not really, look above lol. I'd like more negative points though 

39 minutes ago, Dome said:

Swag 40

touch 36

malf something 

everyone else zero

 

bumped orca up to zero cause I felt sorry for him

@The Orca you’re on the clock. You can make your pick and I won’t judge you for being online again while failing to address my questioning 

Can I get some more negative points 

 

[SwAg]

tbf, matts is scum, but he’s not wrong on the “poor me” schtick you got going.

[Matts4313]

6 minutes ago, SwAg said:

That’s not as far from Occam’s Razor as you would like the general reader to infer.  Occam’s Razor is properly invoked when an explanation stretches the bounds of credulity with the sheer amount of coincidences or outlandish pre-requisites relative to a simpler explanation that is equally supported by the facts.

It’s not outlandish or reliant upon coincidences. You’re just looking for an out on a quip.

The reality is I saw Malfs post. I went and read Mwils to see what he was talking about, I couldnt figure it out, so I quoted them and asked him to explain it. 

For your absurd notion to be correct, I first would have had to know that Malfs push was baseless. Which I was 50/50 on. Secondly I would have be defending Mwil early on D1... which you are a moron if you think I would. Third I would have to be attempting to cut malf off instead of giving malf a chance to build his case and secure my vote.

Occam's Razor. 

[SwAg]

That’s not what Occam’s Razor is.

[SwAg]

So, you saw Malf’s post, you then went and read all of MWil’s posts, you didn’t see the slip, so you went back to the first post and quoted them chronologically, rather than simply saying or asking you don’t see it?