Re: TWG CLIX: Form your special exclusive groups now! - Game Thread
so yeah, here's you addressing mellon. you're passing this off as justifying your playstyle. that doesn't address this specific instance, particularly why mellon thinks your post feels "forced", which is still a bad quality to have. you picked an argument loser to push in freez and i don't think that reflects well on you here no matter how much you've given "reasoning".
so supposedly since i'm so behind on this, let's check in with the current state of affairs, eh? most recently you responded to this freez post with this:
plus, if you've supposedly explained the same thing three times, i need only read one explanation because they're all the same, correct? okay, therefore i have the same misgivings.
you say you see a "bad progression of "logic"", except what i've wanted to demonstrate to you by talking out that whole exchange is that your "progression" is on a poor foundation. so i'm siding with freez in that the whole conversation was rather neutral, and you continue to defend your interpretation. perhaps we need to agree to disagree if you're really going to stick to it. but something i see that i can't resolve with that is your minimization of this as a "reaction test". your unvote is supposedly because you saw something you liked in freez's reaction (which is easy enough to go back and claim when all you say at the time is "Fair enough. Unvote."), and you did so without responding to the substance of his post at the time. unless you're completely unmoved by being accused of lying, i don't know why you didn't address that at the time. your breadcrumbs are showing my dude
vv
so yeah, here's you addressing mellon. you're passing this off as justifying your playstyle. that doesn't address this specific instance, particularly why mellon thinks your post feels "forced", which is still a bad quality to have. you picked an argument loser to push in freez and i don't think that reflects well on you here no matter how much you've given "reasoning".
so supposedly since i'm so behind on this, let's check in with the current state of affairs, eh? most recently you responded to this freez post with this:
plus, if you've supposedly explained the same thing three times, i need only read one explanation because they're all the same, correct? okay, therefore i have the same misgivings.
you say you see a "bad progression of "logic"", except what i've wanted to demonstrate to you by talking out that whole exchange is that your "progression" is on a poor foundation. so i'm siding with freez in that the whole conversation was rather neutral, and you continue to defend your interpretation. perhaps we need to agree to disagree if you're really going to stick to it. but something i see that i can't resolve with that is your minimization of this as a "reaction test". your unvote is supposedly because you saw something you liked in freez's reaction (which is easy enough to go back and claim when all you say at the time is "Fair enough. Unvote."), and you did so without responding to the substance of his post at the time. unless you're completely unmoved by being accused of lying, i don't know why you didn't address that at the time. your breadcrumbs are showing my dude
vv




Comment