theprof00 said:
nordlead said:
theprof00 said:
noname2200 said:
nordlead said:
However, Kantor had implied that his reasons were for the ones already stated...
|
Where did he imply this? He completely avoided the entire radish topic when he first responded to prof.
|
not only that, but his vote for radish was baseless too.
I believe he said that he was voting for radish because radish was against lynching on day one.
When looking at the evidence against radish, there are far better reasons to be lynching him...not wanting a day one lynch isn't one of those solid reasons.
|
I'm voting for Radish because he didn't want to lynch day 1. He said he never lynched day 1, then decided to backtrack because others found out otherwise. You say it is baseless, I say it is saying what I am saying just in slightly different words. I took his post where he originally voted as an nod toward the same reasoning I had. Maybe I interpret it differently than you, but that is how I saw it. No, he didn't explicitly say why he was voting becuse radish lied, but as I said I don't think it is as bad as a poor reason for a vote.
As for avoiding prof, I agree avoiding a question is bad (granted with over 340 posts in a single day I can see it happening). However, he denied avoiding questions and I may have missed the second time they were asked in the screwed up thread.
|
i'm sorry I wasn't referring to you. I was referring to kantors vote. Take my post, and insert Kantor where "his" is in the first line.
wait
You knew it was about Kantor after all? (bolded)
Why did you bring yourself up at all?
You are sounding some serious alarms nord.
|
And this is why I suspect nord, FF. Not mainly because he answered a question that wasn't even addressed to him and answered it as if it was, but because I posted this seconds after he posted his, and I haven't heard one thing in response.
Edit: and he hasn't been back since.
