Current date/time is Fri Jun 05, 2020 10:57 am
Search found 59 matches for Bulgari
Burberry wrote:Jimmy's analysis of Bulgari is going too in-depth but the essence is on target. Asking for explanations for votes without providing explanations for your own is hypocritical and a fair scum-tell.
Although Tiffany is still scummy (and it has nothing to do with his posting style), this needs some addressing.
Vote Louis Vuittone
I don't see how nobody called this out yet. "I think this person is scummy but I'm going to leave my vote on someone else for no reason" is very rarely town oriented.
Burberry wrote:Kate what’s your reasoning on your Tiffany vote? Same question towards you Bulgari, I don’t believe I’ve gotten a response.
My initial vote on Tiffany was predicated on the timing of her vote on hermes combined with this post she made very soon after. In the pages leading up to this, Hermes was throwing his suspicion onto different people, and I feel that he may poke a member of the scumteam considering that very soon after, he has a small wagon building on him. Tiffany seemingly came out of nowhere with a vote on him, making it seem like she was attempting to attack a partner's attacker, so to speak. The second post I linked shows that Tiffany admitted to not reading much of the thread and basing her vote on Hermes' post length rather than their content, which is somewhat ridiculous. This is what my original vote was based on, and her recent posts, which contain none of her own original thoughts, only serve to add to my belief that she's likely scum.
Jimmy Choo, I never responded to your accusation because I literally didn't understand what kind of point you were trying to make.
247: Yes, Tiffany does agree that David's post is rather lazy, maybe irresponsible.
339: Tiffany has read Jimmy Choo's post and agrees with it that this portrayal of Bulgari makes her seem extremely two-faced and hypocritical.
346: Tiffany agrees with this post.
382: Tiffany agrees with Burberry.
473: In a more relevant context, jimmy had already outlined his argument against Bulgari, and Tiffany finds the argument very compelling.
Yes, you do make posts where you disagree with certain points, but so far you've only disagreed with a single person (Dior), whereas you've used posts from multiple others to fuel your own views of the game.
I'm sure there'd be more of you agreeing with people and using their arguments, but unfortunately ~60% of your posts are voluminous non-content.
My point proves you're more than willing to take a backseat and let others develop their thoughts while you simply sheep. Not a very town-oriented approach. Although I will admit I exaggerated about the original thought parts, as you've been doing a great job trying to schedule tea time with the ladies.
As for the Jimmy Choo argument (superb deflection by the way), I already explained how I felt about it in 386. The punctuation argument is ridiculous and what his initial scumread was based off of. When he revises it here, it's less ridiculous but still poorly reasoned. What he calls "attacking" other players is just as easily as perceived as "calling them out on silly shit," as other players have similar things to what I said, just more eloquently and with more words.
So let's go back to my initial question, but a bit more pointed: why are you basing your current strongest scumread off of someone else's content after my initial vote of you, and what is your argument for me being scum?
I'm not sure how you can call my deduction faulty: you initially agreed with Jimmy Choo that I was scummy, then used his argument to develop a scumread on me (sheeping), then continued to agree with him whenever he mentioned me in a post (backseat reading). This is literally the most logical conclusion one could make from viewing your posts, lol. Besides your scumread on me, you seem hesitant to develop your own opinions on people unless others mention them first. I'll freely admit this could be an issue of timing, as we both appear to be in an awkward timezone, but as I pointed out in a previous post, this has already happened multiple times in the game and seems to be more than a coincidence.
Concerning the OMGUS, I call it as I see it: you seem to have had no problem with me and I felt as though your attack on me was predicated by my initial vote on you, which is why I called you out for it.
As for your endgame, you can't simply call yourself town and handwave my arguments on you away based solely on that, and trying to do so shows that you have little actual substance with which to debunk me. As for your insistence on using Jimmy's initial argument, I've already posted my response to it literally two posts above yours.
I will commend you however, for not breaking character. A+ job all around.
How would Miu's flip affect your read of Fendi, if at all?
Also, Fendi just did the exact same thing with Tiffany that he did with Miu Miu earlier: long post with a scumread at the end on a person who already has a good amount of suspicion on them. Not a fan.