And everyone questions my motivations?
I'm just trying to understand what happened. I'm saying here that I understand why you assumed OgNasty was accusing you. Therefore I don't understand at all OgNasty's: "
seemingly admitted to being the scammer impersonating me on Telegram".
I did troll him for a bit, but this is crossing the line
It does seem that initial trolling started this. And a lot of things between you have crossed the line.
I can agree that some arguments/threads against Og have perhaps been taken too far, however I don't see owlcatz being at fault whatsoever in this case.
I agree. Both of them have taken things too far several times. In this particular case I see OgNasty is in the wrong, unless I just don't understand something
I said I reported the info I had on the Telegram scammer to Telegram (scammer's user ID, the conversation screenshots, etc.) and for some reason owlcatz then said I threatened to report him to the police, which is either a lie by owlcatz, or it means he is the scammer
No, there's a simpler explanation:
- You advised Telegram to file a police report against their user who had scammed
- Michael said you pointed in ow's direction, i.e. you accused him of being the scammer
Therefore you think owlcatz is the scammer and reported him to the police.
I'm not saying that necessarily happened, Michael could have lied, he could have misunderstood you, there were several assumptions and some of them could have been wrong.
But that is a much simpler explanation why owlcatz assumed you reported him to the police.
Concluding this means owlcatz admitted to being the scammer doesn't make too much sense.
Actually, he's a liar about me reporting him to the police either way, because that's not what I said...
So you're saying he's wrong at
assuming that's what you said?
And you
assumed he confessed to being the scammer? Have you thought maybe
you're wrong at assuming that too?
Edit:
I see you left
negative trust to minifrij for making a wrong assumption. Does making wrong assumptions deserve negative trust? I strongly disagree.
I think correcting him is enough, especially when the assumption does make at least a little sense, even if not completely right.
