The context within each quote is that bb found it weird that his bad question was responded to adequately by Lorde given that Lorde didn't understand the case well. Lorde became surprised by it too, hence the direct address in my response. So I answered both question at once. Wow, much multi-talent, such multi-task.
See quote. Do quote. Love quote.
What, so you want people to restate their thoughts on the NP case (even if they have stated them already) but you deem it unnecessary to restate the case yourself? You have been quite inconsistent/hypocritical this game with your logic. I'm asking for a recap both for my benefit (in case I miss anything) and for the other's benefit (so it is most clear). Plus, it can show consistency on your part, which is important for scumhunting. You should know this all by now, and making judgements like you have on the importance of such things as this is most unhelpful and anti-town.
Oh, yes, and that totally makes sense. I thought you didn't like OMGUS (second paragraph)? You've got some double standards going on right now.
No clue what you're referring to here. If you talking about my list of quotes, then all of it isn't a response to me. If you're talking about the posts you just now made, then great, you finally decided to stop ignoring everyone else for once.
I think this might be indication of rainy trying harder to play and just not fully being there yet, but curious to hear his response.
Just noticed this. You say it's important for everyone to feel the effects of RVS, yet you were the main person to focus the early Day on NinjaPenguin. Surprise - another contradiction!
The following vote doesn’t count due to Celever not unvoting.
Look above.
Okay, that is fair enough. Both alignments can defend themselves with their own play, especially if that person is a particularly analytical type, however that is somewhat more common on a scum alignment because they need to be aware of their town play. Is there any more evidence to this case? (@Celever, I'm looking at you.)
leads to
Trying to form a contradiction, when beforehand I said:
Which nullifies the contradiction completely.
This is trying to antagonise me packing and not having access to a computer, as previously stated in response to him here:
And bb shouldn't need a recap, frankly. I play differently to bb (lay almost all my cards on the table 24/7, and if I don't it's because I forget) whereas bb keeps his cases secret and hidden until they're big. The case is in the thread and I've been packing and have been unable to do it.
This is frankly becoming confusing. I did, after all, make an entire post with the sole purpose of pointing out where I already answered the question here (it was done with quotes; click the quote link arrow thing):
I don't even know what's happening at this point. I don't know where this question is, or what bb means by it. If NP's shoddy defenses didn't change my mind, it's for good reason. I mean, he's been defending himself like scattered stated here:
But then you said this in response:
Even though you've been, up to this point, heralding NP's defenses.
In light of the above post, this is funny.
The thing I find really weird here is how bb isn't delving deeply at all whatsoever. The second bullet point in particular strikes me as funny logic, because it is almost offensively shallow. "Potential hypocrisy" is never a point against anyone without that hypocrisy having a stated purpose beyond that. And there is, of course, not a deeper aspect necessarily to the hypocrisy point because it's a point no one has made before bb did. bb literally decided to make a point against NP which is weaker than the current points against NP so that the entire case would seem weaker. Which is really, really strange.
Responding to the rest now, but you were the one who brought up the good/bad thing, I'm just putting a name to it. So, no, this is not a point that I made up just now.