How was it a good defense? The first paragraph was misunderstanding the argument. The second paragraph was blatantly false: I went off on every reasoning he had being contrived and didn't make sense. The third paragraph seems like poor reasoning again. Just an assertion that "scum would afk rather than argue," which is the exact opposite of what he had said about it yesterday (which was one of the poorly faked "reasonings" I called out yesterday). He literally said that if Ian was scum, Ian would've kept hounding me instead of giving up. Now he's saying scum would just start shit and coast?