"And as for you saying that you didn't try to turn people against me, Russ. I don't believe it. You promised you would try to do just that when I didn't give in to your extortion."
I said I didn't lie to get people to not vote for you, which is true.
"And the fact that you still don't understand that I never even considered your offer and was just defending my own position is a little nutty to me."
Erm, where did I ever say that you considered my offer? At the time, I explicitly mentioned being annoyed that you'd wasted my time.
Now, what I'm saying is that you engaged me in conversation, which is true, and that it's very silly how you can engage me in a conversation and then later act like I'm bad for having the conversation at all.
"The bad guy is the one that is trying to bribe/blackmail the other person."
Notice how I didn't defend that anywhere in this thread. I still don't think I did anything wrong at all, but that's because I evidently have a different view of group games than other people do. That would be an entirely different conversation. I still have 0 problem with anything I said or did, but if other people do, then that's because they're coming from a different place in their view of the structure of the game itself, so I haven't said anything about my decision. If people have issues with what I did, I strongly disagree, but that's fine.
What I have said is that I see a great amount of hypocrisy in you apparently having such a fundamental problem with, /on principle/, someone from the jury talking about the game and how it should go to somebody who is still in the game, and how there is/was this image of me having badgered you and beaten you over the head about it -- yet you made no efforts to end the conversation, for someone who apparently had such a moral issue with its very /existence/, and when I specifically asked you if you were going to do it or if I should quit wasting my time, you ignored me, AND you said you'd stop talking but then kept going multiple times. You dragged out the conversation on multiple occasions, including one occasion when I specifically tried to end it, which, to me, is strange behavior from someone who had such a problem with me talking to him (about that topic) at all.
My point is that at the time, you dragged out the conversation and let it keep going while hardly expressing the issues you're expressing now and while certainly not acting on them to any degree whatsoever. You acknowledged the hypocrisy to a small degree, so you know it's there and can't pretend it isn't -- but since then have seemingly acted like there was no hypocrisy whatsoever, so you're contradicting yourself in a way that is very annoying and that basically paints a narrative of me as someone who was beating you over the head when really it was a two-way conversation that you were actively keeping going for as long as I did.
Your acknowledgment and then virtual denial of the hypocrisy inherent in your actions then vs your words now is what I am having a problem with. What I really want, basically, is just for you to acknowledge that you did carry on the conversation to a greater extent than I did, and that that is directly contrary to the extent to which you have professed having a problem with the conversation existing, instead of hiding behind your weird insistence that "I said something that I thought would make Russ end the conversation!" is the same thing as "I ended the conversation!" -- esp. when I gave you a very clear, direct opportunity to say that thing some time prior and you turned it down.
