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
Did you just agree with yourself?
Sorry, wrong quote. I meant to quote this, agreeing with minifrij on that:
It really seems both OgNasty and owlcatz are just looking for ways to accuse each other for anything at all, regardless of how little sense it makes
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.
Nope. I turned over the information I was given about the Telegram scammer to Telegram and advised they file a police report. This was the proper action to take, right?
Yes, absolutely.
I at no point said owlcatz WAS the telegram scammer or that I turned over any information about him. That is a jump he made for himself after an alleged conversation with some unknown and what I referenced as a Freudian slip of the keyboard.
It seems a lot of people made bad assumptions here, including owlcatz, minifrij, you and me.
Talking (writing) clearly solves those wrong assumptions.
Can you clear up this please?
- Did you point Michael to owlcatz as he said on this screenshot? Do you have any idea why he said that? Or was he lying? This is very important at it seems to be the base to owlcatz (an partially minifrij -it seems- and me) wrongly assuming you said owlcatz was the telegram scammer
- Do you recognize there's a chance you're wrong at assuming owlcatz seemingly admitted to being the scammer?
- Do you recognize there's a chance minifrij made the wrong assumption in good faith and not to "spread lies"? Does making any wrong assumption deserve negative trust?
