I have been using his OMGUS as an argument (Me "jumping on him" is not a valid reason- "jumping on him" is simply me quesitoning him to suddenly and aggressively for his liking. AKA me attacking him. He voted me for continuing to attack him, (including using his FoS which I was just calling an OMGUs to press him on), and then that is an OMGUS. Also, I never called him dumb... where the heck did you get that from? Yes, I did indeed say he was ignoring me (although I mainly said that he was ignoring parts of my posts). How, however, was he "clearly not" ignoring me? You need to back that up, or the point is moot. You do explain that I said he was ignoring him, and that I do not debate. However, trying to make him look innocent of tunneling (he's not, although i admit I am most likely guilty of it too, which is what that phrase is doing) needs backing up or it's just buddying. Not scumbuddying mind you, since obviously one is dead, but plain buddying.
Big wall of text. Rather inconvenient to read. Anyways.
Here you claim my FoS to be an OMGUS. From what I managed to understand from the mess I quoted, however, you are stating that all this time, you didn't even take the OMGUS seriously, which was apperently your main reason up to this point? I don't even know what you are talking about.
Yes, you are saying I'm ignoring part of your posts. However, I asked you clearly to say which part of your posts I'm ignoring.
Oh wow you really misunderstood. I had called it an OMGUS because for one, I take FoSs seriously, and also to continue to press you, so you would crack. You did, voting me, and THAT is the OMGUS I have been using. I would think it would have been obvious by all the explaining I've done but oh well. You ignored my answer to your questions, the thing tht makes your head hurt, judging by the facy you state I never answered your question.
To this, you reply (your post between the last two linked posts), again pointing out how you disregard the fact you called it an OMGUS before the vote. You also fail to explain just what is it I am ignoring.
Huh? I explained exactly why I said that was an OMGUS, twice. If you didn't notice that, you've got to be tunneling.
Here I brought up a number of points. You still claim it was an OMGUS with a false reason. Let me teach you a bit of English: A false reason is either not someone's true intention (Something which you obviously can't know, basing your arguments on it is thus rather silly) or a reason that is using false facts to come to a conclusion. Neither is true in our case. I had a reason, whether you find it justified or not.
I answered that post earlier, disproving your claims that my reasons were false.. Anyway, the first one is exactly it. YOu are using it as an excuse for the vote, and I have already disproved it several times. In case you need a little reading comprehension workup.
You see, you should always be suspicious of everyone who isn't completely confirmed as townie in some way. Since that is impossible in this setup, due to the possible presence of the godfather, you should still be (slightly) suspicious of me. The fact that you aren't implies that you might be 'in the know', as the Mafia is. Irony and Jim are free to correct me on this if I am horribly wrong(but I don't believe I am).
There may be a little misunderstanding here. By suspicions, I always mean
active suspicions. That is, if I find something actually suspicious about someone. I don't really think there'd be a need to point out how I'm suspicious of everyone else too.
You just posted, so let me handle this in one post.
The "something shady and so poorly worded it makes your head hurt." WAS the answers to your questions. For you not to know that means you did not read it. Just because it is "shady and makes your head hurt" is no excuse not to read it, and it's further tunneling, when according to your buddy Orangebottle you were "clearly not" tunneling. Really. It's time to take thi from being a simple tunnelfight to something a lot better.
My not knowing it is more likely because what you wrote does not make sense. You claim that I'm purposefully ignoring part of your posts, but when I ask you to tell me just what I'm ignoring, you don't point anything out.
In the case of that post, yes it was a textwall. Yet I've had to wade through your textwalls as well, and I have done it. And where did you ask me to tell you what parts of a post you were ignoring? In that case, it would be the part where I explain that I am not using false reasoning, and that therefore that was an excuse.
I WOULD find someone else suspicious, but Orangebottle already takes the spot. You and him, Mormota, are my list of suspects. He has pretty blatant buddying in that post (Why would he do that?, you might ask, because he did FoS you after all. Why? Well, because we're both inevitably going to get lynched due to this fight, most likely me first. He wants to look town if/when YOU get lynched for my townflip, or when you just get lynched.)
And who would that someone else be? Empty words so far.
Also, your buddying theory has utterly no basis. As Jim said (In reply to me making that mistake, I might add): Do not try to give motives to people. You are trying to find something scummy in me, yet you completely failed to notice that? What are you paying attention to, if not what I and an IC said?
That someone else is Orangebottle. Not-so-empty words.
It does have basis, as Orangebottle defends you, saying you clearly did not tunnel when the majority of opinions I have seen so far is that we were
both tunneling each other, (as we were in a tunneling fight not just me tunneling you. The further reasoning is Orangebottle saing you never actually OMGUSed and that you had a reason to vote me, despite the fact that I discounted that multiple times. And of course I'm finding something scummy in you. What do you mean I "missed that" I didn't say you were buddying, like you seem to think I did. I said Orangebottle was buddying you. Really, what are you talking about? If I'm finding scum out, I need to point out scummy things they do.
Admittedly I shouldn't have tried to give a reason for ORangebottle's buddying, but it is still buddying nonetheless.