Yes but this fails to consider that I've made several attempts to defend the initial comment - including for example the suggestion that I've coached him. I'm not asking to be town read from it, but I think it's a strange thing to argue against me because there is no real agenda at play here (obviously only I truly know whether there is or not). It just doesn't make much sense - if you disagree with it then why are you not attacking the defence I've made of it, instead of giving me a layup here?Course there is - it’s disingenuous to imply otherwise, given I could quite easily argue -this- was the agenda, for example:
- make a bad observation
- retract it
- claim only innocence makes sense as there’s no possible scum agenda, therefore I can’t be scum
I’m not necessarily married to the idea that that’s what you’re doing, but for you to move to strike that off entirely as a possibility is a bad faith argument. Read stands.
Or you can actually address what I've said on it that makes it so bad/establish why my posts around Ekko are noise.
I've considered this and came away with the impression that it actually lines up with you being an indie of some sort - the lack of reading suggests a lack of motivation, and the argument you made contains neither the positional care you'd have as scum, and the tendency you have as town to hold your cards closer to your chest to make a more measured read afterwards.It’s like me demanding you town read me because I hadn’t taken your follow up into account - there’s no scum reason for me to be so careless, therefore I can’t be scum