Turncoat stated: source post
She'd need a reason to feel like speaking to hold her tongue in the first place.
I was questioning those reasons when she decided to shower me with that entire "It's not personal" crap.
You think I remember why I picked every argument I've had in the last year and a half? I would imagine, like most people, it varies from case to case.
Since you're looking for a way to make me out as some kind of Turncoat flunkie, I'll throw you a bone and address the Turncoat-related arguments as best I can. I assume you're not interested in my motives for arguing when it doesn't involve him. : P
I can only remember a handful. One was when he was accused of abusing his mod powers. Pretty much everyone put in their two cents on that, even those who hadn't been around for a while. My initial post was to defend him, not on the grounds that I agreed with his decision (because if you had cared to ask, I did not), but on the grounds that the rules are unclear and that it's unfair to blame him if we can't be cohesive enough as a community to set forth specific guidelines for how he should do his job. That was my one post on the matter. The rest of the time was spent defending myself, because you (as always) immediately tried to invalidate my opinion through using my relationship with him as a weapon against me.
Another instance was the body hair topic, in which he was not the subject, but a participator. I actually started that argument with Angee. You came to Angees defense. He jumped in even later, and when he did you began your accusations of us being some kind of "unit".
Another was the Kiwi drama. Once again, I was the initiator, not him. And I was not so much defending him, as criticizing you. I criticized everyone who took Luna's side, catered to or defended her madness. And once again, you used my feelings for him to invalidate my opinions. Even opinions that had nothing to do with him.
And then there's the rape topic. Naturally I found it interesting when it was bumped. I believe I summed up my reasoning for that in a post to Ana, on the same thread. And as A) Turncoat is not the least bit upset by this, and B) No one was attacking him, I had no reason, nor even grounds on which to defend him. The subject of conversation was MissB, not Turncoat. I merely participated in a thread that happened to have his name in the title. And yet, once again, you try to use this to dismiss what I have to say.
There may have been other arguments in which he was either the subject or a participator, but I don't recall them and therefore can offer you no further clarification.
All I've come out of this wondering, is why you have such a driving need to undermine, invalidate, and dismiss what I have to say. If you disagree with me, why can't you focus on the subject and counter my points, instead of running to the "you're a Turncoat flunkie" excuse? That's as bad as Xena's "Wooster conspiracy" accusations, and I used to think better of you. I wish you would stop so we could have a real conversation again.
Edvard stated: source post
Turncoat stated: source post
She'd need a reason to feel like speaking to hold her tongue in the first place.
I was questioning those reasons when she decided to shower me with that entire "It's not personal" crap.
So all you're asking is.. what? Why I respond to you when you talk to me? lol