I never denied that.
Edvard stated: source post
Turncoat stated: source post
So lets go with the contrast then: You believe that your sycophantic behavior towards Luna made you look good, you think your chronic arguing with people lately has painted you into a better light, and those who have gone against you have all done it not because of you?
I didn't see you NOT pretending to be mod some other place and risking the whole site to be ruined to be sycophantic at all. We have discussed this at length.
Edvard stated: source post
If Luna is generous and doesn't ban TC
Edvard stated: source post
I can't help but see Luna's side in all this
Edvard stated: source post
Just for the record, I hold you [Turncoat] responsible in all this...
Edvard stated: source post
Turncoat stated: source post
It's closer to him figuring that if I was willing to lie to Luna and agree to her terms, say the things she'd want to hear and sit idly by while it happens, she'd eventually leave us alone after calming down and let me keep things as they once were in her absence.
This is basic female handling 101, Turn. Without learning there are times it's best to apply this, you'll have a hard time with a relationship with one, trust me. XD
This sort of stuff alongside you practically begging me to be her lapdog over the chat client alongside you saying that Luna ought to have control over what websites I do and don't go on, that she doesn't know any better and that we ought to cater to her whims when she comes around, etc.
If someone disagrees with me, they are welcome to attack my arguments.
Of course they are, and down the line you'll find some means of invalidating the weight of their opinion, then change the argument to being about something else through a character tangent.
I'm not even the only one who's been making these sorts of points about you.
Those who questioned my integrity over this didn't know me to begin with. There were posters who agreed and found me consistent as well.
So... someone like Sugar didn't know you?
Wait, more importantly, those who "agreed and found you consistent as well" are the ones who really know you? Interesting little narrative you're playing out here.
Have we discussed myself to your satisfaction now? You were so keen to make this about me and take the focus from the initial point I felt bad not indulging you, tbh.
Nah, not yet. It'll remain about you as long as your need to argue displays itself as an appetite. Even if it's dropped in this topic, it'll come up again the next time you're aiming to invalidate someone's debate weight through lumping or other excuses, as those excuses are there because you need them.
Missbehaved stated: source post
I think they trust each other and may unconsciously give in to opinions of the other because of their deep bond. It has to do with the way they trust and value each other in a relationship. It can be topped with a cherry of unity and wanting to defend the "us".
How different do you think it'd be if she and I weren't dating?
"You know the answer to this one. 
"
We also disagree quite a bit. That is a presumptuous response.
"More long-winded to explain the entirety of, but it's summed up fairly well as that. Any more than that (if it's even worth bothering) can be read within Xena = Judas and Self Fulfilling Prophecy for aftermath discussions on the matter, alongside other topics I can't remember the names of from before that. If we had the chat logs from the outside chat client and from within during the Luna Kiwi Rage we'd have even more.
Again though, the news itself is old, I just haven't seen him do anything to climb out of that since then."
That was a narrative some chose to pursue out of disappointment. As if Ed should have backed everything that people did to antagonize Luna, without simultaneously being cognizant of the repercussions of the actions. Some of you threw pragmatism out of the window for the sake of idealism and jollies. I seen both sides of the coin on that. Ed chose a hard position on it, and that's what made him a target. Initially. But we both know what this is about.
Turncoat stated: source post
Of course they are, and down the line you'll find some means of invalidating the weight of their opinion, then change the argument to being about something else through a character tangent.
They are free to redirect the topic as they wish if this happens.
Nah, not yet. It'll remain about you as long as your need to argue displays itself as an appetite. Even if it's dropped in this topic, it'll come up again the next time you're aiming to invalidate someone's debate weight through lumping or other excuses, as those excuses are there because you need them.
Are you aware that you've been doing here the exact same thing you described as my way of "fighting"? Guess I should call you my young padawan then.
TheCrowOnTheFence stated: source post
Edvard stated: source post
It would be just like before you were dating.~
So you believe that if Turncoat and I were to break up, he and I would stop agreeing on things (as you apparently think we did not before)? You think we would stop participating in the same discussions? That I would stop attending the forum nearly as much? That Turncoat would be more mild mannered again? That we both would stop thinking negative things about you?
I am not a prophet, but yeah, I do believe some things would change in time. Not the "agreeing on things", but almost certainly the interest to display the agreement and support as passionately and as often. My gut feeling tells me you'd also attend the forum less and TC would become less bold. I do believe you'd both keep the bitterness towards me though.
Edvard stated: source post
TheCrowOnTheFence stated: source post
Edvard stated: source post
It would be just like before you were dating.~
So you believe that if Turncoat and I were to break up, he and I would stop agreeing on things (as you apparently think we did not before)? You think we would stop participating in the same discussions? That I would stop attending the forum nearly as much? That Turncoat would be more mild mannered again? That we both would stop thinking negative things about you?
I am not a prophet, but yeah, I do believe some things would change. Not the "agreeing on things", but almost certainly the interest to display the agreement and support as passionately and as often. My gut feeling tells me you'd also attend the forum less and TC would become less bold. I do believe you'd both keep the bitterness towards me though.
And what if nothing changed? What if we broke up and it turned out that we were just being ourselves the whole time, rather than this theory you have about us being mutual flunkies who only enter discussions and take certain sides to support or defend the other? : P
So you believe that if Turncoat and I were to break up, he and I would stop agreeing on things (as you apparently think we did not before)?
Well it depend how you two would divide. In a bad breakup there might be resentment. I do not know the shape your pre relationship shape.
You think we would stop participating in the same discussions?
Probably not. I mean unless one of you left socio.
That I would stop attending the forum nearly as much?
Hmm you already thought about this possibility. I think you may be on just as much. It might be to spite him or to prove to yourself you are strong. In a break up it is best to stop contact for a while. It is all just hypothetical.
That Turncoat would be more mild mannered again?
You think turncoat lost his manners? I think that implies you think you are a bad influence and have changed him for the worst. I made no such claim. I never even thought about his manners in or out of a relationship. I explained that it is natural for someone to want to defend those in close relationships of trust. It is not negative or shameful. It is what it is... It happens unconsciously and sometimes consciously because there is great trust.
That we both would stop thinking negative things about you? (I assume ed)
It might already be embedded in both you minds. I do not think it will affect your relationship or his relationship with ed. I think it will affect how much you two influence each other in debates. I mean it is possible to not like someone and agree with them. It can be harder to agree with someone you may dislike if someone you trust dislikes them and discredits them.