okay this clears things upScotty wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2023 2:09 pmCape90 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2023 3:01 amwhy would somebody with only 1 vote need a scapegoat?Scotty wrote: ↑Fri Nov 17, 2023 9:11 pm I don’t believe that you actually suspect me, Long Con. I think you named me as a potential scapegoat to make up a case on down the line if things don’t go your way.
If you had been more committed to reading me as bad, I would be less inclined to feel you’re trying to sneakily tie a rope around my ankle before my race
[VOTE: Long Con] aubergine
That feels
Besides meta though, I don't see much of an argument being presented by Long Con, but this line of voting him raises my eyebrowsMy dudeCape90 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2023 3:05 amdisingenuous because Scotty said concerned and not concern? Would it make u look any better if Scotty said concern and not concerned here??? I am confused because to me it really doesn't do anything for you/Scotty saying concerned doesn't make you look worse to me?
ignore the noise of the concern/concerned thing. He’s not pushing his reads at all, and what reads he has are lackluster and unoriginal.
And my being a scapegoat had nothing to do with me having only 1 vote. It’s the implication that should others latch into me being bad, LC can also latch on down the road because he had a bit of suspicion of me that one time.
“I don't see much of an argument being presented by Long Con, but this line of voting him raises my eyebrows”
This sentence is at odds with itself. I read this as ‘LC is an uncooked chicken but I’d still eat him as is…what’s the problem?’
Very
Like my thinking was in a different dimension there when you just meant that he has been pushing you disingenuously