| Sparks said: Original post in question: here ...Clock is ticking, but you haven't voted for anyone. This, even though you agreed with prof and outlaw about action >> inaction. Where's your vote? Non-play isn't proof of mafia either. Besides, it's not like you've been actively investigating or even participating. Took you till a few hours before day's end to even reply to my tiny little question. This, even though you were among those pushing for doing something on day one. You're in the same boat as outlaw if you ask me. ...wow, so scum, such suspicious, so flippity. |
So, this post is for others who can lend some wisdom.
Links are in the numbers.
1. Sparks says that he wants a vote from me, in order to confirm my support of "'town should vote' thing."
2. I tell him that that's not specifically what I stated, and that I was in support of town action over moving on to day two without action.
3. Sparks is then of the belief that, once again, my support of action can only be proved if I vote.
4. I, once again, tell him that if there is action reglardless of my vote, then the action still happened (!!!). And that this is, going back to my original post, a good thing if action happens over a long and active day one (which it has).
5. Sparks then goes off about how the original idea isn't mine (which I didn't argue. I can only speak for my own words...) and says how he wasn't clear about what he wanted from me.
6. So I ask him what he means.
7. Sparks says he wants a vote from me, in order to confirm my support of "'town should vote' thing." And now I'm flippy and scummy.
So from what I can see, this whole argument has gone completely circular. So...
