Glad you're back. Glad you continue to dig yourself deeper with
clear, verifiable lies on top of everything else.
I've been growing suspicious of Zath for some time, and his increase in tunneling and hardline ignorance of anything but one person.
We'll come back to the tunneling, but before, please tell us more about your growing suspicions. You said, on
December 14, "One thing that I
have decided on is that you don't feel like scum right now"; then, on your
very next post on
December 15, "For one thing, Zathras is scum." So, these "growing suspicions" on me happened in the span of 24 hours, between the two times you posted? Do you have
any evidence of my scumminess, especially in that 24 hour period, to give you reasons for your vote? Other than the "tunneling", that is. If you
don't have adequate reasons for the change, then yes, it's totally scummy and totally an OMGUS.
Zath: So changing my mind is automatically an OMGUS? Whether your vote was on me or not, I would still find you suspicious. You're tunneling (I've only seen you even begin to include other people in your view once they start talking at you; you never lay down another suspicion unless asked about it or if the person tries to get you to talk about something else),
Changing your mind is not automatically an OMGUS. Changing your mind
without evidence, posting a
baseless vote on the one who is badgering you,
is.
But let's talk about Tunneling. It means to focus on one person to the exclusion of all others, and you claim above that I "never lay down another suspicion" and so on. These are
clear, verifiable lies. I've laid down suspicions and questioned/attacked people several times, mostly unprompted. Some examples: I attack Pandar & Org, and question Toaster without being prompted:
[1], as well as calling Ottofar and Archangel to quit lurking. I press Org and question Pandar (again, no one prompted me to):
[2], and others. Even in my last, I press Argembarger for a wagon post, without anyone "start[ed] talking at you; [or...] unless asked about it or if the person tries to get you to talk about something else".
Your assertion that I'm tunneling is utter bullshit, and one more example of the OMGUS nature of your vote: You say I'm tunneling only because I'm attacking
you. You need me to stop attacking you, so you say I'm tunneling, and vote me for it. But it's an evident lie.
As I said earlier, there's a difference between tunneling and not letting go of the rod when you've caught a scum.
Your erroneous statements are the ones where you proclaim that I must be lurking, it's got to be lurking, it can't be anything else! ...even though I said I would be gone, and even went out of my way to let other people know.
Ah, but that "erroneous statement" statement of which you speak is this one:
Yet you post twice, with nothing but an erroneous statement?
a) Please show I posted
nothing but it. Oh, you can't. So
you lied, again.
b) I never said you were "lurking, it's got to be lurking, it can't be anything else". I questioned whether you were going to cower back into the shadows as you had threatened. There's a difference between just lurking, and cowardly running away.
c) You "went out of [your] way to let people know"
after my so called erroneous statements, yes? So you can't ask me to have seen the future and know it before it happened, yes? At the time all you had said was "don't have much time to post today, not sure if I'll be back", which could just as easily be a screen for a cowardly scum, and the sort of thing people need to be pressed on if they don't return in 24 hours (which you didn't, so I pressed). All this before your text/move.
d)
Lurking is not my issue with you. Your stance on it, sure, your scummy inconsistencies and contradictions, certainly, your idiotic OMGUS, of course. Your wilful lies about my tunneling and misrepresentation of my arguments only sweeten the deal. I'm not calling you a lurker. I'm calling you scum.
I can see why you might be leery about Firefox devouring my post, but I'm pretty goddam positive that I'm not the only one that's had this problem.
Sure, it has happened to me too, but I don't then jump into the thread and say "aaargh! my browser hates me! so you get a minimal post, and I may not be back!" Having your browser crap out on you is not scummy. Wailing about it on thread and using it as an excuse to not post,
is. But a minor point compared to all the others, I'm willing to let this one pass if you wish.
And, in order: I didn't say lurking was okay and that we shouldn't hunt lurkers; in fact, I've made this distinction several times. Don't really know why you're ignoring it, but I've said that lurking isn't okay, but it shouldn't be a priority. I've said over and over that going after lurkers is fine, but going after them exclusively is a fault, IMO.
Just to make this abundantly clear: Yes you did say lurking was OK: "I also don't see anything inherently scummy about it at all." Please tell me that doesn't say "lurking is OK".
And yes, you did say we shouldn't hunt lurkers: "If you're completely convinced that all the active players are town,
then I can see going after lurkers." How is this not saying that we shouldn't hunt them?
You are again lying when you say you didn't say what you said and defended saying several times.
You said it. Have the balls to stand by your statements. Your continued lying about it and attempts at disowning it only make you look scummier. And no one has called for going after them exclusively, don't be disingenuous. You said they should be ignored until you are
completely convinced all the active players are town.
You, sir, are a liar and a scum. My vote stands, and nothing in your post makes it even a little bit better for you. I guess your suspicions on me will continue to grow, eh?