Edvard stated: source post
So Crow gave up and you're taking the stuff I wrote in reply to the stuff SHE said to me, and answer to it from your own perspective? And you blame me for making a salad and hampering the argument.
It's hard not to when 9/10 of your replies in here are towards her.
Some of what you replied to was Crow talking with Inquirer. Does this mean I ought to lump you two together? 
So while Crow kept saying "Oh I simply called bullshit to the list, just the list", you agreed with me when I replied "You can't talk of ulterior motive, if you think haart was genuine in her leaving this site." You should have explained it to Crow then, she had a massive hard time getting that part.
I should have? What, is it my job or something?
From what I can tell from what's been typed here, neither of us can gauge a motive beyond appearances, but she has some history with her that I lack. We see that there's likely more going on here than what's on the surface, but the "why" remains a mystery. We can speak of a potential ulterior motives despite lacking the evidence at least as conjecture, and I don't see why there's anything wrong with that. From here, it sounds like most of your fixation is related to how strong the word "bullshit" appears to you in post (alongside transference from other topics).
You should replace her entirely in debates for both your sake, imo.
Both of our sakes, or yours?
I still don't agree with the "lumping" notion, so I see no reason why I ought to "replace" her at all when she and I are both perfectly capable of posting about our own things. Despite having similar views quite often, we aren't completely aligned.
Did being called a "traitor" Luna-style and dragged into that "hanging of the Judas" bullshit when you all knew how much I care about preserving the community piss me off? Of course. Did Crow bringing that up repeatedly in this entirely different argument piss me off ? Yeah.
One thing I can definitely say about you, it's nice that you don't mind admitting to these sorts of things. It's more disarming to be like "Yeah, that happened" than the more commonly taken approach of denial that people tend to lean towards.
That didn't make my points less valid.
It did make finding your points related to Haart take a little more digging...
Out of Cad, Alena and Crow, Crow was the most aggressive towards Haart. I read the other posts as playful attempts at humor.
Alena's seemed fairly direct imo, while Crow's only seemed potentially more "aggressive" towards you through sheer volume, and towards her simply from how strong the word "bullshitter" might appear.
How did mine seem?
Yeah, it was the color.
Fuck me, starting to think Crow’s issue with seeing through the points is contagious...
You brought it up for a reason.
Turncoat stated: source post
TheCrowOnTheFence stated: source post
Turncoat stated: source post
Inquirer stated: source post
TC has a way of sounding mysterious even when he's being mundane .I'm mysterious?
Meh. I spent way too much time on that.
Turncoat stated: source post
haart stated: source post
Call yourself a pathological liar and no one ever suspects that you're standing right in front of them XDCalling yourself something like that serves to reduce the impact of it. It actually makes it easier to become closer to people when they have a pre-expectation formed to reduce the shock.
Is this a bad thing? I don't see anything bad with it but you pointing out makes it seem bad. I guess pointing a flaw out beforehand makes one seem more genuine and not hiding anything. I seem to have an aversion to not only "bad" people, but also good people with more flaws than I thought (like you TC).
I'm mostly noting that it's a tactic. Warning people of a mental flaw in advance makes you seem "honest", like you're "trying", "stronger" through being able to admit it and more believably "remorseful" after acting on it through having basically apologized in advance. It lets people be excused despite them continuing to exhibit the problem, allowing it to do so through there being less abrasion caused by it.
Many who understand the social game use it as a form of social padding. It's a smarter approach compared to denial if you aren't dealing with oversensitive judgmental types. Denial has a way of catching up with you, while early admission lets it be seen more like a quirk. It also gives them less room to dig through stealing the discovery's thunder.