[QUOTE=ShadowFacts]
I found **sach’s **post about you suspicious. I laid out the reasons why I felt it was, questioned sach about it, and he defended himself against my accusations. It was a case that required a lot of reading between the lines, and I stated that at the outset. By the end of that conversation, I felt somewhat satisfied that **sach’s **motives were not as malicious as I originally thought.
[/quote]
But after the end of the conversation, you kept reiterating that you still found him suspicious. Until suddenly, and without explanation or reason, you stopped doing that.
I’m a writer by trade; I know perfectly well how a nitpick can be expanded to a billion words, if the author is suitably motivated. The length of your argument doesn’t impress me. The content is lacking. The word “implicit” was not the key to Diggit’s case; the defense was the point. I’m comfortable speaking for Diggit, by the way, because it was obvious on first read that he was suspicious of the defense, not its implicitness.
I was not 100% convinced yesterDay that sach was not scum. As the bandwagon against him proceeded, however, I became more and more convinced that he was likely to be town, since it seemed to me that he was being railroaded. Another example of a similar attitude: as I said earlier toDay, I am not 100% convinced (or even close to it) that Blaster is not scum (or you, for that matter). But I am not voting for either of you - I am voting for someone who I find more suspicious.
