A deal's a deal. Let's do this!
Your argument has been, from the very start, that I've been heavily twisting Nuke's words. Not "misinterpreting," not "jumping to conclusions about," heavily twisting. This really seems to require that there be an obvious meaning to twist there, since the more literal "you've been interpreting his words" doesn't really have the same punch to it.
So, even specific examples aside, it's pretty clear that you think Nuke's plan was fairly obvious, including motivations and reasoning behind it.
And here we start.
From my short response which you are currently saying is me ignoring your attacks:
I do not find the ENTIRE PLAN obvious, but I can still recognize certain things it definitely is and certain things it definitely isn't.
Let's expand this with an example.
Here's a hypothetical quote:
"Personthing is scummy, yes, but I don't think he's scum because happy elephants are fun hat nice good."
Here, there are things the quote obviously says: the writer says he believes Personthing is scummy, but not scum. Most of the quote is incomprehensible gibberish, though. That doesn't mean the writer isn't saying Personthing is scummy, but not scum.
If one tries to use that quote to say that the writer is saying he thinks Personthing is scum due to being scummy, that's bullshit and an example of twisting words.
To summarize, it is possible to twist the words of a statement that is partially not understood. As long as there is something clear in the statement, that can be twisted.
Trying to say I somehow know NUKE's entire plan because I am arguing that you twisted his words is an utterly nonsensical accusation, which, of course, means that it's central to your argument against me.
ONWARDS!
If it wasn't, you really wouldn't have had cause to doubt my questioning him on it, much less cause to attack me over it, since even if a potential meaning, motivation, or reasoning could reasonably be assumed, there'd be no particular reason not to check. You've even explicitly stated that everything you've brought up has been glaringly obvious, which really seems to hammer that fact in.
First, I'm noticing you apply my "glaringly obvious" comment to statements made after said comment that it really doesn't apply to. This is either a stupid tense mistake or word twisting. Based on your other attempts to apply it to things it doesn't apply to (for example, some things written after it, and THINGS I NEVER FUCKING SAID), I'm going to assume the latter.
Next. See above, to start. This is one of those points that largely depends on your previous nonsense being true. However, beyond that, I was not attacking you for questioning NUKE. I attacked you for partially depending on massive twisting of what he said.
Yet, everytime I want to know just where the hell Nuke said this or that, you get all defensive and explain some potential line of reasoning for why his plan would be/do X, despite him never explicitly saying anything of the sort.
...Explain. As far as I can tell, you mostly just asked me about why I said things I never said, tried to get me out of sticking to the glaringly obvious, and basically just screwed around.
When you didn't, well...I'll get to this later.
This does not mesh well with your assertions that I was heavily twisting Nuke's words in order to attack him, because that'd require he had a clear, established meaning to begin with.
See the start of the wall of text.
In fact, you've even admitted that there was a more likely possibility to his plan than the one you'd originally considered.
BULLSHIT. BULL FUCKING SHIT. This is a complete and utter lie. I said that said possibility was more likely than anything involving towntells, something I had QUITE CLEARLY stated was clearly not a major factor in NUKE's plan. Or, to put it differently, I stated that it was more likely than something I said it couldn't be.
But you don't like actually writing accusations based on what people really say, do you, Irony?I know what I read, and I know the obvious context they were in (that is to say, what day they were on, and when during that day, and what was said around them). What Irony and I were starting to get in to was a somewhat deeper exploration of the plan. Now Irony's saying that the results we got in that deeper exploration, which had never been brought up before the "glaringly obvious" comment, are proof that I...was lying about knowing NUKE's entire plan or something?
When the results of deeper exploration both require deeper exploration and are proof that I was deliberately twisting his meaning earlier, yes, I'd say that's odd.
I find it shocking that the results of deeper exploration might, in fact, have required deeper exploration. I find this completely shocking.
Second, this is ridiculous. There's only one discussion that full comment of mine can possibly be seen to apply to. That is to say, only one discussion actually fits fully with the comment. That happens to be the "towntells" discussion, in which the results had pretty much no bearing on my argument. So, yeah.
And yes, I assume you're his scumbuddy. You've both jumped to defense of and displayed insistent insight of his plan, which doesn't make a massive amount of sense if you weren't in on it in some fashion.
I know you hate hearing this, and keep on saying you've destroyed it, but I just read what NUKE wrote in this thread. I will also note that you've repeatedly tried to say I have more of an insight into his plan than I've ever shown, through strained interpretations of certain words.
There. I'll look at everything else when I'm actually reasonably awake.
Author
Topic: Totem Mafia - A BYOR - Game Over (Read 140053 times)