|
On October 22 2012 03:48 Harry Tasker wrote:
Are you really that god-damn stupid? Seriously?
I'm trying to get insight into your thought process pre-NK to see if I would agree with your explanation of it now, post NK, and get a read off it.
How can you not see that kind of thing is beneficial/needed today?
That line of yours read to me like you found it scummy, and I still read it as such.
But if you want my "reasoning," I'm just a huge asshole to people who don't agree with me. Questionable way to go about things for sure, but Jack was being extremely difficult yesterday. He was both resisting the John lynch and was convinced I was scum. So I got pissed off and apparently hurt his feelings.
|
On October 22 2012 03:57 Douglas Quaid wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 03:48 Harry Tasker wrote:
Are you really that god-damn stupid? Seriously?
I'm trying to get insight into your thought process pre-NK to see if I would agree with your explanation of it now, post NK, and get a read off it.
How can you not see that kind of thing is beneficial/needed today? That line of yours read to me like you found it scummy, and I still read it as such. But if you want my "reasoning," I'm just a huge asshole to people who don't agree with me. Questionable way to go about things for sure, but Jack was being extremely difficult yesterday. He was both resisting the John lynch and was convinced I was scum. So I got pissed off and apparently hurt his feelings.
Yes, at the time I found it scummy. Ditto with Alan's fence-sitting.
So knowing that I found something scummy, but it came from townies, it's valuable to hear the explanations for why scummy things came from townies.
Geddit?
|
On October 22 2012 03:57 Douglas Quaid wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 03:48 Harry Tasker wrote:
Are you really that god-damn stupid? Seriously?
I'm trying to get insight into your thought process pre-NK to see if I would agree with your explanation of it now, post NK, and get a read off it.
How can you not see that kind of thing is beneficial/needed today? That line of yours read to me like you found it scummy, and I still read it as such. But if you want my "reasoning," I'm just a huge asshole to people who don't agree with me. Questionable way to go about things for sure, but Jack was being extremely difficult yesterday. He was both resisting the John lynch and was convinced I was scum. So I got pissed off and apparently hurt his feelings.
No you didn't hurt my feelings you just literally made no sense and played like an idiot imo, however you are obviously the same DQ as you were yesterday
|
So Jack, could you tell me what you found 'Interesting' about Alan's post?
|
On October 22 2012 04:00 Harry Tasker wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 03:57 Douglas Quaid wrote:On October 22 2012 03:48 Harry Tasker wrote:
Are you really that god-damn stupid? Seriously?
I'm trying to get insight into your thought process pre-NK to see if I would agree with your explanation of it now, post NK, and get a read off it.
How can you not see that kind of thing is beneficial/needed today? That line of yours read to me like you found it scummy, and I still read it as such. But if you want my "reasoning," I'm just a huge asshole to people who don't agree with me. Questionable way to go about things for sure, but Jack was being extremely difficult yesterday. He was both resisting the John lynch and was convinced I was scum. So I got pissed off and apparently hurt his feelings. Yes, at the time I found it scummy. Ditto with Alan's fence-sitting. So knowing that I found something scummy, but it came from townies, it's valuable to hear the explanations for why scummy things came from townies. Geddit?
Sounds reasonable.
Bah ppl need to get posting and shiz. Alan not posting is bothering me - scum too timid to emulate his posting style perhaps?
/WIFOM
|
...or I'm retarded an Alan's already posted and I explicitly replied to it. Cool.
But lets go back to Jack.
With Jack, I'm having some issues with
a) his "interesting" comment
b) that I'm "obviously" the same person as yesterday.
Harry, what do you think?
|
On October 22 2012 05:35 Harry Tasker wrote:
So Jack, could you tell me what you found 'Interesting' about Alan's post?
some stuff that requires more evidence to actually be validated
|
On October 22 2012 05:59 Douglas Quaid wrote:
...or I'm retarded an Alan's already posted and I explicitly replied to it. Cool.
But lets go back to Jack.
With Jack, I'm having some issues with
a) his "interesting" comment
b) that I'm "obviously" the same person as yesterday.
Harry, what do you think?
you argued the same point with the same fever as yesterday. This is why I am almost positive you are the same person
|
Douglas, I'm thinking that Jack should be explaining to us what he meant by interesting, whether it requires further evidence or not.
If you found it interesting and didn't want to bring it to the thread Jack, then I don't know why you posted it at all.
What gives?
|
On October 22 2012 06:12 Harry Tasker wrote:
Douglas, I'm thinking that Jack should be explaining to us what he meant by interesting, whether it requires further evidence or not.
If you found it interesting and didn't want to bring it to the thread Jack, then I don't know why you posted it at all.
What gives?
i was assuming that Alan would post more after that post.
He used some style choices that were different from his day 1 posting.
He also said this
And the fact that you redacted the question makes the whole accusation seem insincere.
which doesn't sound like the Alan of yesterday who stuck up for your sincerity
He has also gone pretty inactive which was true of Ben too
|
On October 22 2012 06:23 Jack Slater wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 06:12 Harry Tasker wrote:
Douglas, I'm thinking that Jack should be explaining to us what he meant by interesting, whether it requires further evidence or not.
If you found it interesting and didn't want to bring it to the thread Jack, then I don't know why you posted it at all.
What gives? i was assuming that Alan would post more after that post. He used some style choices that were different from his day 1 posting. He also said this Show nested quote + And the fact that you redacted the question makes the whole accusation seem insincere. which doesn't sound like the Alan of yesterday who stuck up for your sincerity He has also gone pretty inactive which was true of Ben too
To the bolded, presumably that's because he was thinking Douglas wasn't Douglas, so it makes sense in that regard.
I agree with you about Douglas I think... the way he came to me asking after you is quite like his day 1 self. Maybe he just went full-derp at the start of the day - something I'd expect scum to be *very* careful to avoid doing.
What did you find different about Alan's style choices?
|
On October 22 2012 06:12 Harry Tasker wrote:
Douglas, I'm thinking that Jack should be explaining to us what he meant by interesting, whether it requires further evidence or not.
If you found it interesting and didn't want to bring it to the thread Jack, then I don't know why you posted it at all.
What gives?
What are you even asking here?
|
On October 22 2012 06:28 Douglas Quaid wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 06:12 Harry Tasker wrote:
Douglas, I'm thinking that Jack should be explaining to us what he meant by interesting, whether it requires further evidence or not.
If you found it interesting and didn't want to bring it to the thread Jack, then I don't know why you posted it at all.
What gives? What are you even asking here?
Goddamnit you were asking that to Jack. I'm derping so hardcore right now.
@ Jack
Reasoning for finding me the same person is fair - I suppose I'll accept anything that benefits me amirite? Go me.
|
On October 18 2012 03:04 Ben Richards wrote:
@DQ
On October 19 2012 01:42 Ben Richards wrote:
@Harry
-snip-
@Alex
On October 19 2012 14:48 Ben Richards wrote:
@Harry
old alan
Ctrl+F @
new Alan
On October 21 2012 16:22 Alan Schaefer wrote:
@DQ
|
^ LOLOLOLOLOL hahahahh wow
That might be the most laughably brilliant observation I've seen
I'll be honest - I'm tempted to vote him just on this. Howabout you guys?
|
On October 22 2012 07:00 Jack Slater wrote:old alan Ctrl+F @ new Alan
Nice catch. It almost seems too simple. But at the same time it's also hard to believe that this would randomly be the first time Alan used it.
Looking back at Alan's filter, usually he addresses people just by saying their name, or rather often by quoting a post and then talking back at it.
|
On October 22 2012 07:10 Douglas Quaid wrote:
^ LOLOLOLOLOL hahahahh wow
That might be the most laughably brilliant observation I've seen
I'll be honest - I'm tempted to vote him just on this. Howabout you guys?
Same, but I feel it might be... unwise 
There's no reason for people not to post for a day or 2 first in any case.
I agree with Alex in that Alan/Jack were probably the clear choices for replacement NK, but I wants more infos.
|
This post is very similar to Harry yesterday and probably really hard to fake. So he is most likely the same person
On October 22 2012 03:48 Harry Tasker wrote:
Are you really that god-damn stupid? Seriously?
I'm trying to get insight into your thought process pre-NK to see if I would agree with your explanation of it now, post NK, and get a read off it.
How can you not see that kind of thing is beneficial/needed today?
This is my mind leaves Alex and Alan as possible scum.
Alex hasn't posted much but I would put it right now at about 80% Alan, 20% Alex
I would be willing to lynch Alan
|
On October 22 2012 07:28 Jack Slater wrote:This post is very similar to Harry yesterday and probably really hard to fake. So he is most likely the same person Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 03:48 Harry Tasker wrote:
Are you really that god-damn stupid? Seriously?
I'm trying to get insight into your thought process pre-NK to see if I would agree with your explanation of it now, post NK, and get a read off it.
How can you not see that kind of thing is beneficial/needed today? This is my mind leaves Alex and Alan as possible scum. Alex hasn't posted much but I would put it right now at about 80% Alan, 20% Alex I would be willing to lynch Alan
You have my permission to say "Harry is as much of a dick today as he was yesterday", if you'd like.
|
Oookay I'm just going to go ahead and vote Alan.
##Vote Alan Schaefer
Looked through his filter a bit, and unlike his first post today...
1) Alan always refers to me as "Doug" or "doug" later in his filter. Never by full name, or never by "@ DQ"
2) He uses italics in that post - never used italics ever in his filter
3) His post just looks really really edited. It's very overly-formal.
4) That format isn't how Alan asked people questions on D1 at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
