>>532752239
>If neither party can definitively prove it, then the one at fault is the one who used it as an excuse in the first place, which was you. You said that you replying to posts proved you were awake.
Uhhh no I think thats pretty unfair considering you were the one who brought in a claim that can't be reasonably proven. If anything you would be at fault for trying to make a argument that can't even be proven which would be me not being awake.
>"Being awake" is true the majority of the time. This is not a major coincidence. Your timezone probably aligns with /drg/ peak activity anyway.
I mean I guess thats fair? So you think I'm awake like lets say 60% of the time?
>Yeah, so on those rare occasions you would change it ahead of time. I don't understand what point you think you're making here, why would this be hard for you to do?
My point is what I said just before that. If something happened that was like right then something I can't possibly plan for yet I changed my ritual in response to it then what do you make of it? The only way for it be changed would be if I was making the post myself and then naturally changed it right?


>>532750339
I mean I don't really think so but I meant in context of getting replies.