You label me a "parroter", but the first thing you call me out on is going against the "general consensus," which as I recall consisted only of you and Rowen agreeing to unvote. Then I am called suspicious again for withdrawing when Rita presented herself, and hopping on a No Lynch "bandwagon" -- can you really call it that when I was the third person to vote and assumed I was the second, as I was composing my answer while Pascal was submitting hers? -- because I had no other leads and agreed with the initial reasoning presented.

And then, of course, you call me out for falling into a trap you fell into yourself, and then for voting for Lloyd when his time came up. Yet you'll note that I was the first one who directly called out Lloyd's role lie, and I used completely different evidence to Pascal's earlier post. I came up with my own logical argument to support my vote and laid it out clearly, and so far this has been ignored because it doesn't fit the preconception that I'm just going with the flow.

In short, I see nothing in the suspicions lobbed against me but confirmation bias.