Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Zrk2]

Unvote, vote Mr. Person. I explained about his tunneling on Jim in a previous post and his recent throwing out accusations without arguments is horrible. Examples in the morning.

Since it seems to have come up, how about you guys tell me what my meta is, I'd like to know as I'm not self-aware enough to pick it up myself.

And here are my reasons for Mr. Person:

He acts aggressive and tries to get people to stop making points, and has been for a while. From previously I noted that:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Zrk2: You had no real reason to think Bayer was scum, you just seemed to hop on the "Herp derp, he's "defending" Org" wagon. The way I saw it, he was simply stating his distaste for an Org policy lynch. With good reason (I suppose), it never works out. Why did you vote him?

I thought he was scum because he was defending Org acting in a truly atrocious fashion, so I thought he was trying to protect his scumbuddy from being lynched.

Jim: Here are some quotes of you and Mr. Person doing nothing but picking at each other.

@lordnincompoop and Jim Groovester: My reasoning for voting Book was that he scumhunted a confirmed jester. Now, even he admitted that Org was a jester at the time. He also said he'd be happy to lynch the jester. All of this just screams that he doesn't want to scumhunt. That's a major scumtell right there.

Furthermore, Book did no actual scumhunting beyond talking with Org. That further implies he doesn't want to scumhunt. He only attacked me after I attacked him. I won't say OMGUS, but it was very reactive and passive. We all know passiveness is the way of the scum.

If you still think my argument is crap, I'd at least appreciate it if you said WHY you think it's crap instead of just going "oh, he's scum because his argument is bad" and walking off. Thank you.

Well see, you're wasting your time by scumhunting a player whose alignment is already publicly known. You're also trying to scumhunt one of the hardest-to-read players we have when he's NOT a jester trying to obfuscate, much less when he actually is. And even if he isn't, he's obviously going to try to act like one, so you're left with an absurdly difficult scumhunt that hinges on an impossible situation happening.

Are you saying we should ignore him from this point on?

That is a potentially very dangerous decision. This is an unpredictable game, and Org may be aligned one way or another that we don't know about. All we know is Bayer defended Org, who flipped town, and that Org's power is to reveal his alignment. We can draw that conclusion, but I'm certainly not going to sit and ignore him for the rest of the game. This can be a cover (a risky one), and one of the factions may even have recruitment powers, which would make Org a perfect target for that.

Pand may make "lies" of omission, if I'm getting this right. He hasn't stated anything regarding the role besides the fact that he won't tell outright lies, which is quite ambiguous to me.

Yes, we really are best off ignoring him. Everything he says is WIFOM. Yes, his role might change, but it probably won't. And besides, Org is probably the worst player imaginable to turn into scum. Everybody already wants him dead, it doesn't give the scum a net advantage in votes, and doesn't gain the scum a useful night power. Wowies. If the scum did have a conversion, the best play would be to use it on night of mylo or lylo on a non-Org player to gain vote dominance. That's either tomorrow or the day after tomorrow, depending on how many scum we have. Basically what I'm saying is that conversions are a much bigger problem than just "Org might of been converted!". Unless it's a sacrifice-to-convert kind of role, but then we're given a good warning in advance. And if that happens, then yes, feel free to ask Org all the questions you want. Until then, don't spread WIFOM, please.

What we know is that Bayer received an alignment PM from Org that said Org was a jester. We also know Org has an ability to reveal his alignment to another player. We also know Org hasn't fought to defend himself at all. If you put all this together, Org's a confirmed jester. I can't even believe I had to explain this to you. But feel free to explain how Org is not a jester. He's bargaining to get himself lynched for fuck's sake, what more evidence do you want?

Again, not a fact. Just another conclusion. You're stifling attempts at discussion, it seems. As I said, the setting may change and I think talk like this (coupled with plenty of hunting) will prevent us getting crippled by twists later on.

Again, if you have reason to suspect Org is converted, bring it forth. Like if a scum who sacs to convert dies or we kill a cult member or something like that, then yes, Org will be suspect #1. But until then, stick with the evidence we have in front of us that says Org is a jester, 100%.

Well of course if my assumptions are wrong the conclusions I've drawn from them are also going to be wrong. Of course, the only part of it that's a presumption is about Leafsnail, and I'm obviously not going to claim another players i confirmed if Leafsnail had to also be confirmed since Leafsnail isn't. The only reason that I even bring Leafsnail into the equation is that it drives another nail into the coffin of the "Pand's lying!" idea.

This doesn't even make sense to me. What are you saying?

I'm saying that Leafsnail's claim and suggestion of what the law means makes me suspect that said law pertains to lynching and will have no impact on any revealations related to Org. But what I'm also saying is that even if Leafsnail is lying and the law did pertain to Org, I'd still say Org is 100% confirmed Jester by any stretch of the imagination.

Neither are infallible. Pand may be, to an extent, but Bayer isn't. You're being deliberately naive here.

In what way is Bayer fallible? Lying? He's a townie, why would he lie? Being mistaken? What's there to be mistaken about a PM that says "Org is a jester". There may have been a ton of words, but the keywords are "Org" and "jester", no matter how it was worded. And in any case, if Bayer was confused, he would of asked questions until he wasn't.

In fact, I'm actually curious now. How could the PM Pand sent Org possibly be so misleading as to cause SirBayer to confuse Org's alignment for jester? Jester isn't the kind of thing you accidentally put into a paragraph without meaning to. Town or survivor, maybe I could see it as a stretch, but jester? No way. Why would Pand include "jester" in an alignment-stating PM without that person's alignment being jester?

Who says we have a killer? Why are you assuming there is one? Where are you getting this info?

MC?

Eh, I'm kind of assuming that in a large role-heavy game like this that we have all or nearly all the kinds of roles there are. But yes, we may very well not have a killer. Note how I said killer, by the way, since an sk wants Org dead just as much as the townies do at a certain point. But whatever, it's not a big deal. I just don't want to give Org the satisfaction of winning with a lynch, really. But if we have to, we have to.

You've explained your reasons for voting Book/myself and I don't find them very compelling or even justified. You're not doing a good job explaining why fishing for information from the confirmed jester who's making suggestions that he knows something is a bad thing at all. Is it? Why? That's all Book/myself was doing.

Since you haven't come up with a satisfactory answer to that question, you're instead quoting from the scumhunting bible to try and build a case there, by suggesting that Book/I is/am being passive, and OMGUSing, and other mafia jargon, without really meaning it or it being applicable.

Basically, you don't have a case.


I have a question for everyone. Is anybody a zombie?

I know I am.

And I know Org is.

And I've got a feeling that the conditional for today has something to do with that.

One thing: What's an MC?

Mass claim.

So you don't see how scumhunting a jester can generate WIFOM?

Nice passiveness, IronyOwl. FoS Jim Groovester.

(Note that even when calling someone else out for passiveness Mr. Person Fos'es you.)

Is zombie cult? And why are you telling us?

No, as far as I know. My alignment's the same. Just my role is completely disabled.

I mentioned it because I want to know if there's anything anybody knows about it. I also wanted to see how widespread it was, because if it's fairly widespread then there will be several players interested in reversing it somehow.

Jim, any more information you can share would be appreciated.

Eh, I've already said about as much as I know.

I was targeted sometime during the day yesterday. I was stabbed and turned into a zombie. The way Org talks it's obvious he's a zombie too.

So you don't see how scumhunting a jester can generate WIFOM?

You act like that was Book's intent.

Of course everything that comes out from Org's mouth is going to be WIFOM, but there might be useful information in what he has to say regardless.

Shame on Book/me for trying to get it out. Especially since I've got stake in what Org might have to say.

That's the exact problem. You're generating WIFOM. Intentionally. And knowingly. That's not even getting into the fact Org doesn't know shit and is just leading you on to get you to vote him. Also, even if he did know something, he'd have no real reason to say anything about it. He'd have to trust the town while we have no reason to go through with a lynch on him. None whatsoever.

So tell me, how is this information on what the law is more important than finding scum? Because it certainly seems to be more important to you and was definitely more important to Book.

Dear God, you act like sharing information is a bad thing.

And apparently I'm not scumhunting even though I've given you reasons for why you're scum. I find that pretty strange.

You're just grasping at anything you can, Mr.Person.

You're not hunting, you're just shitting here saying I'm scum. Where have you scumhunted? Ever? You've defended yourself from me and decided I was scum. Have you given a reasoning for why my reasoning is bad? Nope. Have you looked at anybody else? Nope. This was the same shit Book did, which makes me think you have a similar reason for wanting to know about the laws and don't care much about who's scum.

You're trying to acquire dubious information at the expense of scumhunting to get accurate, always useful information. The law we have here doesn't matter. Let me repeat that, it does't matter. Because no matter what, optimal play here is to scumhunt for and lynch scum. So why are you choosing to spend so much time learning about the law and not spending any time scumhunting?

Jim contributes a little while posting, but Mr. Person just tries to get him to shut up the whole time.

And as LNCP noted here:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

@lordnincompoop and Jim Groovester: My reasoning for voting Book was that he scumhunted a confirmed jester. Now, even he admitted that Org was a jester at the time. He also said he'd be happy to lynch the jester. All of this just screams that he doesn't want to scumhunt. That's a major scumtell right there.

If you mean investigation, I don't see how that's harmful in any way. He was investigating his role and discussing game mechanics, and I think that is quite an important aspect here.

This is a weak reason, and if that's all you have then it's a weak case as well.

Furthermore, Book did no actual scumhunting beyond talking with Org. That further implies he doesn't want to scumhunt. He only attacked me after I attacked him. I won't say OMGUS, but it was very reactive and passive. We all know passiveness is the way of the scum.

Reactive AND passive? What?

And you know damn well good scumplay isn't passiveness. It's suspicious, sure, but I'd say bad attacks are even more so.

If you still think my argument is crap, I'd at least appreciate it if you said WHY you think it's crap instead of just going "oh, he's scum because his argument is bad" and walking off. Thank you.

I'm doing so right now.

Yes, we really are best off ignoring him. Everything he says is WIFOM.

Now you're going around making all these predictions and assumptions. Do you really think we're dumb enough not to notice that stuff?

Nothing's preventing him from being productive (besides his role), and we shouldn't condemn him just because of his meta.

What we know is that Bayer received an alignment PM from Org that said Org was a jester. We also know Org has an ability to reveal his alignment to another player. We also know Org hasn't fought to defend himself at all. If you put all this together, Org's a confirmed jester. I can't even believe I had to explain this to you. But feel free to explain how Org is not a jester. He's bargaining to get himself lynched for fuck's sake, what more evidence do you want?

I never said Org was not a Jester. But there's a definite possibility he might become something else, or that there's a hidden mechanic in play. You're being oblique.

Again, if you have reason to suspect Org is converted, bring it forth. Like if a scum who sacs to convert dies or we kill a cult member or something like that, then yes, Org will be suspect #1. But until then, stick with the evidence we have in front of us that says Org is a jester, 100%.

That does not mean we should simply ignore him, or stop questioning him.

You're not hunting, you're just shitting here saying I'm scum. Where have you scumhunted? Ever? You've defended yourself from me and decided I was scum.

Have you done any scumhunting, for that matter? This piece here could just as easily apply to you. You're being too narrow.

Have you looked at anybody else? Nope.

Don't think you have, either. Start investigating other people; you're losing focus.

This was the same shit Book did, which makes me think you have a similar reason for wanting to know about the laws and don't care much about who's scum.

I don't think you do, either. You're not investigating anyone else, and your case is weak.

You're trying to acquire dubious information at the expense of scumhunting to get accurate, always useful information.

This is contradictory. In the same sentence, you say he's trying to get both unreliable and reliable information. Pick one.

Jim: Here are some quotes of you and Mr. Person doing nothing but picking at each other.

[HUEGSPOILER]

I don't see how this is relevant.

Didn't Mr.Person stress confirmed?  Like, in capitals?  The word which Book used to describe Org's jestership status?

Stress confirmed?
Elaborate.

If you're annoyed that he didn't explain why voting the confirmed jester was scummy... well, you didn't really explain why him voting Book was scummy either.  "Not much of a case" is a very vague accusation.

I'm pointing it out now, and if you look at my previous posts I'm pretty sure I did so there too.

Lich (sk; super-rare; 7+ players): You can kill a player each night. If you are killed, your soul will transfer to BUDDY1, and they will become a lich in your place. However, if they are already dead, your soul will be lost. Actions: kill

It's a ridiculously overpowered and swingy role.

Probs not in, then.

Why say this?  He specifically said later in the post that he thought you weren't tunneling.

What?

Mr. Person and Jim Groovester have been tunneling each other.

Tunnelling is quite clearly mentioned, as you can see.

If you mean Mr.Person, then you're thinking of the wrong person, and I don't see that mention anywhere in his posts.

Darvi, are you going to scumhunt/be useful or what?

He continues his attempts to get people to stop talking here:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Boy, it sure is quick-wagon-and-switch in here...

So what are you gonna do about it?

As well he can be passive about actually scumhunting:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

I can't really think straight since it's hot. I'd ask some questions at Zrk, but I'm not in the mood right now. Ugh. I see passiveness and laziness in certain people (which includes me, by the way) and I'm not liking where this takes the game in the long term. First question, Ottofar, are you there? Second question, Zrk, why did it take this long for you to vote someone? Third, can we get a votecount, please?

And here:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Boy, it sure is quick-wagon-and-switch in here...

So what are you gonna do about it?

Worst of all, he doesn't like TvTropes!

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Please refrain from posting links to TVTropes. Thank you.

Ottofar, you've had like a whole goddamn week to post something of value and haven't. At this point you're just trying to get out of posting.

[Jokerman-EXE]

Supposedly no.

Unvote Mr.Person, vote Darvi.

You're being awfully reactionary, you know.

Not that I disagree with you about anything you've said, but why are you flipping the fuck out at anyone who's voting you?

Because really, what the Hell is this? They're attacking me for being "passive" and not scumhunting, and yet...well gosh, I can't find a single reason for their votes. It's infinitely frustrating when no one else seems to notice the hypocrisy here.

Anyway, I think it's pretty clear who my picks are for scum. What about you, Jim? And anyone else that's just lurking the day away?

[Jack A T]

Reread, voting.

Unvote, vote Mr. Person.  His attacks on SirBayer were overenthusiastic, horribly flawed, and he basically piggybacked off of Zrk2's arguments. His attacks on Jimbook were conversation-stifling ones that showed a strong dislike of searching for information on the laws (only the scum would benefit from knowing how laws effected scumhunting, apparently.  We townies don't need to know how laws effect scumhunting...*grumbles*). His current attacks on Jokerman feel too light for the evidence compared to his earlier attacks.

Jokerman, with his current nervous-looking, angry behaviour and rather passive previous behaviour, is a close second.  If Mr. Person turns out to be town, and Ottofar's power works, you'll most likely be the first person I'll vote for tomorrow.

[Jim Groovester]

What about you, Jim? And anyone else that's just lurking the day away?

Mr.Person, Zrk2, Darvi.

I've already listed why I suspect Mr.Person and Zrk2. Additionally, Mr.Person hasn't answered my question on what he thinks of Zrk2, since he's been ignoring him completely, and he's been tossing around vehement accusations whenever it's opportunistic. Zrk2's handling of Ottofar is scummy. Namely how he wants to see Ottofar hammered before he can get clarification on his role, and before Ottofar can talk.

Darvi's been hopping between bandwagons. What made me suspicious initially is this post and then this next one. So he votes me based on a misunderstanding, and then after he hears my explanation, and accepts it, doesn't unvote. Nice. He's also been lurking a ton.

Votecount, please. The day's supposed to end today.

[Zrk2]

Zrk2's handling of Ottofar is scummy. Namely how he wants to see Ottofar hammered before he can get clarification on his role, and before Ottofar can talk.

When did I say that? I don't remember anything about attempting to hammer him, but there was that whole fiasco about hammering SirBayer.

[Jim Groovester]

You didn't. But boy, did you really want to see Ottofar lynched.

[Jokerman-EXE]

Extend, if it's ending today. People aren't talking enough.

[Darvi]

Wait, I didn't unvote? I could've sworn I had. Oh well, too late for that<_<


I have been lurking lately because on Friday I wasn't in a mood for playing due to not feeling well and the weekend is pretty much ok to go for lurking afaik. Was busy and only half awake most of the time.


Also, I hate you guys for posting those huge walls of text that my mind refuses to register during those 3 days.

[IronyOwl]

1. Because I was also playing a video game at the time. And like I've already said before, it served the purpose it was meant to.

2. Like I said before this, I wanted to point it out so that no one thought it was going unnoticed. For one thing, just because I don't think the people on it are scum doesn't mean they aren't, so I don't actually see how I did anything you wouldn't think is Town.

Why? What's the purpose of pointing it out and making sure no one thought it was unnoticed?

I didn't think Mr.Person was scummy for his post (that part came later). However, I felt like his almost-defense of the bandwagon would draw out at least one of the scum, and I was meaning to look at other peoples' responses to what he had to say.

I don't get it. How was this supposed to work? Did it?

Because really, what the Hell is this? They're attacking me for being "passive" and not scumhunting, and yet...well gosh, I can't find a single reason for their votes. It's infinitely frustrating when no one else seems to notice the hypocrisy here.

Anyway, I think it's pretty clear who my picks are for scum. What about you, Jim? And anyone else that's just lurking the day away?

Wanton and repeated passiveness, lack of scumhunting, OMGUSing, and freaking out at being voted don't count as reasons?

Extend, if it's ending today. People aren't talking enough.

Then lead by example.



Zrk2:
You've been EXTREMELY eager and preoccupied with Ottofar's lynch.

Spoiler: Exhibit A (click to show/hide)

I don't think it's happening, poor scum.

Eh, I guess there's nothing to lose, unless he has some crazy ability involving unvoting.

Unvote.

But is his self vote valid in the first place?

I already unvoted, I don't think that's necessary.

Well, Ottofar, nothing seems to be happening.

Hmm.

Idea: We all use our night action to reveal our powers to us, revert the night thanks to Ottofar, and enjoy the benefit of knowing our powers along with the added fate effect. This means we get to find our powers at no cost, besides Ottofar losing his one-shot.

Good idea? Or best idea?

When does the day end?

First you don't want to let him get and reveal the info. Then, when Jim calls you on it, you relent and say it couldn't hurt. You then question whether Org's hammer is actually invalid, and suggest nobody else needs to unvote Otto because you already did. When we finally find out what Otto's power is, you shrug and hop back on the wagon. When someone suggests a good use for it, you approve but don't bother to unvote, and then inquire about when the day is ending.

You obviously really wanted Ottofar lynched, and haven't been doing much else. Then when someone calls you on it:

Unvote, vote Mr. Person. I explained about his tunneling on Jim in a previous post and his recent throwing out accusations without arguments is horrible. Examples in the morning.

Since it seems to have come up, how about you guys tell me what my meta is, I'd like to know as I'm not self-aware enough to pick it up myself.

You shift off Ottofar and onto Person. You also ask about your own meta, which strikes me as scum trying to get everyone to tell him how to stop dropping tells.

You then elaborate with two enormous quote pyramids, the same quote:

Boy, it sure is quick-wagon-and-switch in here...

So what are you gonna do about it?

listed under both "attempts to get people to stop talking" and "passive about scumhunting," neither of which really seems accurate, a passive quote mentioning that you are being passive, and a tvtropes link.

How about giving useful explanations for why Person is scum, instead of meaningless walls of text and poorly-explained garbage?

[Pandarsenic]

I'll give you guys an extension until I get back later tonight, at which point I'll give an hour warning (while I shower and dry off) before locking and processing.

[Zrk2]

Unvote, vote Mr. Person. I explained about his tunneling on Jim in a previous post and his recent throwing out accusations without arguments is horrible. Examples in the morning.

Since it seems to have come up, how about you guys tell me what my meta is, I'd like to know as I'm not self-aware enough to pick it up myself.

And here are my reasons for Mr. Person:

He continues his attempts to get people to stop talking here:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Boy, it sure is quick-wagon-and-switch in here...

So what are you gonna do about it?

Jokerman points out that a bandwagon is forming and Mr. Person tries to get him to drop it by essentially asking 'So what?' and treating it like it isn't worth being addressed. Everything is worth addressing, trying to get events to be ignored can only help the scum.

As well he can be passive about actually scumhunting:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

I can't really think straight since it's hot. I'd ask some questions at Zrk, but I'm not in the mood right now. Ugh. I see passiveness and laziness in certain people (which includes me, by the way) and I'm not liking where this takes the game in the long term. First question, Ottofar, are you there? Second question, Zrk, why did it take this long for you to vote someone? Third, can we get a votecount, please?

He calls out people for being 'passive' without giving any specific examples, and then proceeds to ask two questions with almost no contribution to the discussion.

And here:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Boy, it sure is quick-wagon-and-switch in here...

So what are you gonna do about it?

This also is an example of his passivity, he addresses the claim of a bandwagon, yet doesn't do anything about it despite the fact (implied by his tone) that he thinks pointing it out is scummy.

Worst of all, he doesn't like TvTropes!

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Please refrain from posting links to TVTropes. Thank you.

Ottofar, you've had like a whole goddamn week to post something of value and haven't. At this point you're just trying to get out of posting.

[Jim Groovester]

We need a votecount more than we need an extension.

[IronyOwl]

He continues his attempts to get people to stop talking here:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Boy, it sure is quick-wagon-and-switch in here...

So what are you gonna do about it?

Jokerman points out that a bandwagon is forming and Mr. Person tries to get him to drop it by essentially asking 'So what?' and treating it like it isn't worth being addressed. Everything is worth addressing, trying to get events to be ignored can only help the scum.

Or he was pointing out some of that passiveness you seem to care about. What makes you say he wasn't asking what he was going to do about it in the literal sense?

As well he can be passive about actually scumhunting:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

I can't really think straight since it's hot. I'd ask some questions at Zrk, but I'm not in the mood right now. Ugh. I see passiveness and laziness in certain people (which includes me, by the way) and I'm not liking where this takes the game in the long term. First question, Ottofar, are you there? Second question, Zrk, why did it take this long for you to vote someone? Third, can we get a votecount, please?

He calls out people for being 'passive' without giving any specific examples, and then proceeds to ask two questions with almost no contribution to the discussion.

He did give a specific example: You. He asked why it took you so long to vote someone.

And here:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Boy, it sure is quick-wagon-and-switch in here...

So what are you gonna do about it?

This also is an example of his passivity, he addresses the claim of a bandwagon, yet doesn't do anything about it despite the fact (implied by his tone) that he thinks pointing it out is scummy.

Quit changing your story. Was he trying to dismiss the conversation or call Joker out as scum for it? Was he trying to get Joker to drop it or not doing anything about it?

You also seem to be admitting that your previous walls of text were absolutely worthless, and haven't addressed your peculiar attempts at Ottofar.

We need a votecount more than we need an extension.

Also this. Don't make me attach conditionals to my vote, Pandar.

[Jokerman-EXE]

Irony:

1. If scum were involved in the bandwagon, then I didn't want them to think it was unnoticed. If they weren't, I didn't want them thinking they could slip in on it. If it was only town and they didn't realize, then I wanted to point it out. I still don't see how that's actually scummy at all, so if you could explain that I would be grateful.

2. I was answering someone's (don't recall who) question about how I was apparently "waiting for people's opinions" before voting Mr.Person, and then the post you quoted was my explanation. I didn't think he was scummy until after, but I felt like conversing with him and pointing out a few things while I was there would stimulate conversation. Which uh, doesn't seem to be working too hot. I feel like I'm only talking to the same three people. 

3. So you're going to say that I'm still being passive and not scumhunting, despite the fact that I've leveled accusations against my list of suspicions while others (Darvi) have simply voted me without reasons? Because I'm pretty sure that's being hypocritical. I also explained why the attacks on me were bullshit, and saying "Oh you were freaking out" is retarded because I've explained multiple times why their votes were bullshit and cause for alarm.

4. Lead by example? I think I have the most posts over the last three days, and you've been gone (granted it was the weekend, but still). So explain what that's supposed to mean.

[Leafsnail]

Zrk2 seems to be providing very large quotes that don't help his case at all in the hope that noone bothers to read them.  For instance, Mr.Person asked Jokerman to elaborate on something he said by asking "So what?".  Apparently, the Zrk2, this is telling people to stop talking.

And his first quote of that post was selfquoting an already incoherent mess where he just quoted a bunch of Mr.Person's posts and pulls a random conclusion out of thin air.  Oh, except this time he also accuses Mr.Person of being "aggressive".  Damn, major scumtell there.

For the passivity allegation, you cite something which could possibly be seen as a bit passive... then another question to Jokerman asking him to elaborate on something.  Damn, to Zrk2, it seems that pressing for more info is the worst thing you can do.