Well did you want to undermine it or not:
...yeah, I said that I wanted to undermine you, of all people? I typed it out pretty clearly, I think.
And let's not get bogged down in semantics. Undermine = asked to ignore which is exactly what I accused you of.
I'm not the one who's spewing out definitions for the sake of their own argument, you are. And it's getting just as thin as the paper of a reputable dictionary.
Continuing? It's the first and only reference to past behaviour I've made. It is in direct opposition to your current behaviour, it is entirely reasonable to point it out.
IMO, neither you or Sawneeks should've pointed it out at all, but that's just my opinion.
But now that you have, what of it? Just because I failed to notice something I previously tunnelled someone for; you gonna lynch me for that?
I realise this is facetious, but in case anyone is so easily bamboozled I'll reiterate my point that you are specifically choosing words (from your vast vocabulary) to undermine my arguments rather than responding to me in good faith.
I've been responding to you for quite a while now, *Splint. And why would I NOT want to undermine your arguments? You're arguing
against me.
This is, was, and will always be a stupid argument
Would you like to continue to pretend otherwise?
Because...?
Only reason I hadn't already called you out is because I wasn't around. I'll have to look back to see who let this ridiculousness ride
It was reasonable to you. It was still reasonable when Kawl claimed. It was less reasonable after me, Stan, Corn and CM weighed in.
How so? Because you're all bidder claimants?
Corn and CM weren't named. You and Stan were named. Yet you and Stan said you weren't bidders. Kawl and I were named, and I was a bidder. He says he was too. Is that your "weight"? That you're not what a previously unquestioned flavour post suggests you were, and it took my escalation to bring it to light and actually soft-confirm/HELP you? I fail to see how that
unjustifies my actions.
And it was a question you could have asked in public, but again I think you'd prefer the question to have gone unanswered.
Again, thanks for noticing. Didn't I already address that? Oh wait, you're selectively dismissive, I forgot. Aside from your non-stop nibbling of me, what have you contributed to the society of this thread, internetman? You keep saying I should have asked; why didn't you, o keenly observant one?
You're all hindsight and no foresight, *Splinter. That's why you're successfully untouchable at what you do: nitpicking. Your repetitive, unoriginal jabs appear detail-oriented to Town by virtue of the misplaced decisiveness of their sheer reactive quantity. I read them, and all I gain are lost minutes. When I reply to them, all I gain is your inane aggro.
Scum doesn't have a monopoly on lies, because lies don't have an alignment. You haven't yet done a single thing in consideration of Town's
future, only tunnelling. You wanna bring up the past? Did you see what blind tunnelling achieves, in DP? I should know, I was THE tunneller. And it didn't end well for anyone except scum. If you wanna repeat my history, go ahead, my vote's there waiting for yours and everyone else's.
And now you accuse the one who talked about it openly instead of in private, of having an ulterior motive? Fuckin' LOL. Doctor, I hope you can treat my
I got the answer for us, not you. The ends justify the means.
I brought it to that level of divine intervention, and you're all the better for it. Justify your own existence, exalted one.