The Syndicate

DharmaHelper wrote:I'm not being forced by the hunger to promote an SVS lynch.

Is that a thing? I just picked a word that appealed to me.

DharmaHelper wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:DH, if you could describe your desire to lynch S~V~S with one word, what would it be?

I mean the magnitude of your emotion. How strong is your desire?
I have two answers, but the one I'll use is Indomitable

It sounds like you might be starved for an S~V~S lynch.

I'm not so inclined at the moment.

Turnip Head wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:If you perceive me to be mimicking it inadequately, then I need to see what inspired that perception.
Why?

Because some portion of my brain is telling me that you don't actually feel the way you claim to feel about me and that I should sound the horns around the kingdom and call for your lynch. I need to understand your thought process to have the ability to believe you are expressing a real read.

Turnip Head wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Hey Turnip, please help me feel that you're not making things up:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Turnip, what difference(s) do you observe between my civilian game as you'd expect it and what you see in this game?
Do you think I'm making things up?

Not necessarily. I think you could be making things up, or you could be wrong. I have rarely felt more comfortable within my civilian-styled game than I have in this one, frankly. If you perceive me to be mimicking it inadequately, then I need to see what inspired that perception.

If you can point something out and explain how it lead to your feelings, I'll decide whether I think you're making things up.

S~V~S wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:DH, if you could describe your desire to lynch S~V~S with one word, what would it be?

I mean the magnitude of your emotion. How strong is your desire?

Hey JJJ make me feel you really care about being fair.

I don't understand. Do you feel I have been unfair in this exchange with DH or elsewhere?

So I'm strangely moved by timmer's words. His responses to my questions/accusations and those of DrWilgy didn't seem to boast persuasive evidence-based content, but the tone and emotion of his responses is making me feel a good feeling. The feeling that I feel, it's intuitive man. It's like, I see his blue avatar of sadness, and I see the words in his posts, and I'm like yanno, okay man. I'll chill. Touched by a timmer.

Hey Turnip, please help me feel that you're not making things up:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Turnip, what difference(s) do you observe between my civilian game as you'd expect it and what you see in this game?

DH, if you could describe your desire to lynch S~V~S with one word, what would it be?

I mean the magnitude of your emotion. How strong is your desire?

There's still time to do something else with this lynch. Even if we still do lynch Bubbles, the total landslide in the tally is the coziest possible position any baddie could ever want. Holding anyone among the current 11 voters accountable for any potential undesirable flip is going to be difficult by default simply because there are so many.

timmer wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:My biggest concern about a Bubbles lynch is that it feels manipulated. One of the baddie teams hand-walked this game into a lynch of Golden and I feel similarly about this. I acknowledge that Bubbles has been more suspicious than Golden was though. I'll continue mulling.
But how many members did a baddie team have at the time of Golden's lynch? Two? Were they at three yet? In a game of over 30 players, suggesting that a baddie team of 2-3 somehow manipulated the game is a bit of a stretch no?

It only takes one person to send in the Epi kill.

thellama73 wrote:You could always vote DH with me.

I take it you're not impressed with his move against S~V~S? If so, why?

My biggest concern about a Bubbles lynch is that it feels manipulated. One of the baddie teams hand-walked this game into a lynch of Golden and I feel similarly about this. I acknowledge that Bubbles has been more suspicious than Golden was though. I'll continue mulling.

timmer I'll consider what you've said. I don't have much time to play right now, but I'll let it swirl around in my brain.

Turnip, what difference(s) do you observe between my civilian game as you'd expect it and what you see in this game?

That took a long time. I'm tired. I go sleep now.

timmer ISO

~addendum after full compilation: it started an ISO and became a case. he's suspicious.~

Spoiler: show

This is timmer's second post on Day 0. It's always important to acknowledge that content from this stage of the game can really only be called suspicious if it is compatible with a baddie recruiter. My feelings about this are mixed (hence the variety of colors!).

Yellow = This may be a minor point, but I'm going to account for it in my considerations of Day 0 content where there is precious little to work with in the first place. I think it was inherently easier for people to make "arbitrary" votes in the Day 0 poll, and I also have my doubts about the honesty of it. Everyone's choices were probably at least a little influenced by their own roles. timmer chose position 2, which was widely regarded as a scary choice, so I am willing to view this with some suspicion.

Orange = Can anyone who played in Recruitment 3 recall this incident and report on its significance? I merely want to gauge how believable timmer's innocence was when posing this question -- asking for people's unrecruited strategies and wondering aloud how he might play his own.

Blue = People took some flak for proposing an LMS structure in this game and at the time I didn't think it was that suspicious. I still don't, really. It can be noted though that timmer literally mentioned his own uncertainty about the wisdom of neutrals "thinking like civilians". We have to ask ourselves whether one of two baddie recruiters had the balls to suggest something so blatantly spooky in his second post. I'm not sure.

Green = WIFOM. I'm not sure why anyone except a recruiter would care about whether recruiters get bonuses for drafting within their own clans. I'm also not sure why an actual recruiter would ask this question publicly instead of safely PMing the hosts.

Overall I think he could be a recruiter, but I can't say that without a lot of trepidation. Thoughts, anyone?

Spoiler: show

If he is a recruiter, then he recruited right in our faces on Day 0.

Spoiler: show

What is "phonyy-chatty" and why did Golden's chatter about recruiting feel that way? timmer, you're needed at the front desk. I'm not a fan of piggy-backing Epignosis in such vague terms.

Spoiler: show

If he was a baddie on Day 1, then he was being a baddie right in our faces. "Should we really be playing like civilians???" Danger, entering an industrial WIFOM area. Hard hats required.

Spoiler: show

If he's a baddie recruiter, then he was baddie recruiting right in our faces. "Stop trying to kill me, I might pick you up later!" To accuse timmer of being a recruiter is starting to demand enormous WIFOM. I'm losing my ability to maintain any of that specific suspicion without feeling like a conspiracy theorist.

Spoiler: show

This post confuses me. I don't understand why timmer was critical of people for fulfilling their perceived civilian metas. What exactly are a pile of likely-neutrals supposed to do in a Mafia game otherwise? Play tic-tac-toe until someone recruits them? Moreover his perspective of Golden in this post -- that he was playing to his civ meta -- seems to clash some with his prior assertion that Golden seemed "phony-chatty".

Spoiler: show

What was the appeal of this thought process?

Spoiler: show

I don't like this post. I should have noticed it earlier since it was in response to my own question. timmer's effort here to explain why Golden's post about potential recruiting strategies seems quite belabored -- like he's really working hard to find a way to paint it in a bad light. That's meaningful to me because I think that is a task that really did demand hard work. The Golden post being referenced just wasn't that suspicious (granting that Epignosis genuinely felt otherwise). This is the Golden post in question for reference. timmer is criticizing Golden for discussing the "facets of how he would come to a [recruiting] decision" (which was the point of the discussion at hand) despite the factors he mentioned being "facets weighed by everyone in that position". This strikes me as an effortful reach to assert Golden is providing filler content for the sake of seeming like his civilian self -- something which is already not even a good reason to be suspicious of Golden on its own right.

Moreover, let's examine the second paragraph. timmer has expressed clear suspicion of Golden -- thrown shade all over him. Then this highlighted bit comes into existence, and I am baffled. He is both condemning and exonerating Golden based on the same point simultaneously.

Spoiler: show

I tried to goad timmer into throwing shade on me because I was doing the very thing he "accused" Golden of doing (playing to my civ meta while neutral). He wasn't willing to do so. I struggle to follow his mindset.

Spoiler: show

This post can be summarized as "I am going to play neutrally because the people claiming to play pro-civilian could easily be lying". Again, I don't understand this line of thinking. I see two problems:

1.) The notion that certain players "could" be lying shouldn't inherently affect timmer's approach. I don't understand why he'd feel the need to play neutrally just because he isn't sure he can trust people who aren't.

2.) People who claim to be playing neutrally (like timmer himself) could also "already be lying their asses off". What's the difference? What is gained? The thought process is a mystery to me. That doesn't necessarily mean it's a baddie thought process, but if I can't relate with it at all that's not a great sign.

Spoiler: show

Again, the highlighted point is applicable to more than just claims of pro-civilian thinking. It's also applicable to claims of deliberate neutrality, like timmer's own claim. I am struggling to decide whether this is just a logical discrepancy or something actually suspicious. I know I'm confused though.

Spoiler: show

Again I get some vibe that timmer is reaching for a reason to criticize Golden. He asserts Golden was "shying away from" or "not directly addressing" points made against him, which I would say is bunk. Golden addressed literally every single point against him about ten times each (that's why the discussion around him dominated the thread so thoroughly).

Spoiler: show

This vote was always a piece of cake for most of the people when Golden was lynched.

Spoiler: show

timmer is suddenly dismissive of meta as a means of reading people in this game despite his original beef with Golden being entirely based on meta (Golden "falsely fulfilling his civ meta").

Spoiler: show

He advocates lynching lurkers and acknowledges that they are unlikely recruitment choices. Thus, he is advocating the lynch of neutrals -- a pro-baddie approach.

Spoiler: show

This is nonsense, in my opinion. He acknowledges some validity in Canuckle's case against Bubbles, but doesn't actually lend any real support to it "because he might end up on Bubbles' team". He seems terrified of actually doing anything. My confusion persists.

Spoiler: show

Regarding the highlighted portion -- Golden was never evasive of anything while he was alive.

Otherwise this post continues the hyper-timid approach timmer has employed the entire game thus far. I can grant that this would be awkward baddie behavior, but I'm not inclined to give him a pass for that.

Spoiler: show

When timmer voted for Bubbles, the other two voting that way were Canuckle and thellama73. He'd stated earlier his agreement with Canuckle's case on Bubbles, so that is consistent. I believe this is the first time timmer has even indirectly mentioned llama though, at least in a long while. He should explain why he felt inclined to trust llama's lead on this matter. Both Canuckle and llama have seemed to play a pro-civilian styled game so far -- not the pile of neutrality timmer has claimed to desire.

Spoiler: show

Roxy peered straight into timmer's soul and saw the recruitment all over him. Whether she was right about that remains to be seen. His response is admittedly all it could be in the face of that statement -- WIFOM.

~~~

The early content is a mixed bag. I have reasons to suspect timmer as a recruiter and reasons to doubt him as a recruiter. Still, the full breadth of the content is troubling enough to me that I am willing to call timmer a legitimate suspect who might earn my vote this phase.

My cases have been unpopular in this game, so I encourage everyone to review this and tell me if you disagree.

This timmer ISO is getting huge.

thellama73 wrote:JJJ, I apologize if you've answered this, but I forget. What do you make of DH this game? I am very wary of him. But he has fooled me so many times I can't tell anymore.

My assumption is that he has played a very deliberately neutral game. It strikes me as a survivalist approach -- always stay involved, but never get involved. I believe one of the win conditions is to survive the game unrecruited, yes? I think that might be DH's most likely objective.

However, I grant that this assumes he would have applied for zero recruitments and wasn't selected for one when the game started. I'm not very comfortable making that assumption, and I also grant that his approach is not quite balanced. His performance so far is very unhelpful for any civilian cause, but not necessarily unhelpful for any baddie cause.

He has pledged to put some kind of content into this thread soon. We'll see whether he's just slow rolling us all towards another day phase of nothing or if that's a serious pledge. My read will probably become negative if it isn't.

I haven't looked at either of them terribly much. I'll check out timmer because he's been giving me the heebie-jeebies for some reason. Thanks, Doc!

My Mafia motivation in general is crummy right now. I am feeling very lazy. If someone asks me to look into a particular player, I'll do it (provided I haven't already looked into that player). Please push me into action, don't tolerate my lethargy.

thellama73 wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:llama, I've been putting off my intent to dig into your ISO. Should I start now? Am I going to find anything troubling? You might as well just tell me now.
Knock yourself out, guy. I stand by my play.

I've just reviewed your content (all visually, I'm not quite motivated right now to type up a full analysis), and I don't see much suspicious content. I'd said before that my intuition was telling me to read you negatively, but the thread data doesn't bear that out. I'll proceed for now under the assumption that I was tinfoiling you.

Some thoughts on LoRab vs. Ricochet 2015. I had to rely on a scratchy, skippy illegal feed, because the Pay-per-view price was astronomical.

Spoiler: show

I don't agree with the highlighted portion. In my experience baddies actually prefer to make circumstances appear less dire than they really are -- it makes civilians relax and walk casually into an even worse position. I don't think it's a bad thing that LoRab proposed this idea though. In fact I really like that LoRab was the first player to put any kind of pressure at all on Ricochet. Prior to this he had breezed through the game so far on the strength of his analytic contributions. I don't know if there's a good reason for baddie LoRab to start poking him like this. This was never likely to develop into a larger-scale anti-Ricochet movement.

Spoiler: show

Slight eyeball twitch.

Spoiler: show

Pretty fair though. It's very hard to keep track of how many players are on each team in theory. If someone had asked me without Ricochet's work already in the thread how many people were on each team, I'd have been like , bro.

~~~

I'm not going to reference the whole argument. I've just read over it and generally I don't feel more or less suspicious of either of them. Ricochet was a little snarky at points, more so than I think was warranted by LoRab's accusations, but I don't know Ricochet's game at all. I think that can be resolved with meta by anyone who knows him better.

LoRab's accusations don't move me on my read of Ricochet, but they do positively impact my read of LoRab herself. I don't think this is an effective baddie strategy to employ the way she has done it -- and I doubt she was trying it. They were both positive reads before this and that remains the case.

Actually I'm going to dive headfirst into this Ricochet/LoRab slap fight and see what feelings I develop. I think an exchange that long warrants more commentary than it's gotten from third parties so far (other than "whoa, that's a lot of arguing").

Wish me luck, it looks dangerous.

llama, I've been putting off my intent to dig into your ISO. Should I start now? Am I going to find anything troubling? You might as well just tell me now.

S~V~S, when you suggest I am a "thread steerer", I'd say you're mostly correct. I don't like to stifle discussions, but I do have a way of directing them -- at least in cultures that know me better. I don't really expect anyone to give a crap about my opinion around here at this point.

thellama73 wrote:I don't agree with that.

S~V~S wrote:So take me with a grain of salt. But expect me to push back. I like to challenge authority

I encourage that.

I don't feel terribly authoritative though. Not many people seem to agree with anything I've said in the game, for better or for worse. :P

S~V~S wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
S~V~S wrote:But I still don't know that ANY host would give one of 4 power roles to somwonw unknown to them.
Maybe it's just me, but if I'm hosting this game and the random generator assigns the recruiter roles to 4 first-time players who've never dabbled in Mafia -- I leave it that way.
But you are not hosting this game. So i will discuss it if I please

I have no intention of stifling the discussion. I only mean to state my own perspective on the issue. Discuss whatever you like.

S~V~S wrote:But I still don't know that ANY host would give one of 4 power roles to somwonw unknown to them.

Maybe it's just me, but if I'm hosting this game and the random generator assigns the recruiter roles to 4 first-time players who've never dabbled in Mafia -- I leave it that way.

Scotty wrote:@JJJ is a person that I haven't wanted to tackle due to his post count, which I know from BoB is the way he usually plays- he asks a lot of questions, he demands a lot of answers, and his Nitpicking skill is a legendary level 99. I'm sorry...I didn't really follow the train of thought in the Boomslang case- I read it over multiple times- multiple times- and never commented on it because I felt stupid, as if I were glossing over something integral to the argument. But the argument was very much localized in a small, logical lapse- I guess you could call it- on Boom's part; a lapse that JJJ latched onto fervently. I'm sure it would have swayed me if it didn't feel like I was taking a Semantics 401 course en route to my Masters in Philosophy. His responses to criticism are calm, collected, and carefully thought out. That could make him very dangerous if recruited by the wrong party. And that troubles me.

The lapse in logic itself wasn't the problem for me -- it was my proposed reason for that lapse (mistake made by Boomslang while fudging suspicion of Golden). Nobody else save for Bullzeye seems to be giving that notion any consideration no matter how I word it, so I might just be wrong. That was my intent though.

I think some people saw the logical breakdowns I used and just assumed I was nitpicking some minor point to an extreme degree, whether as an honest tunneling man or a mal-intended smearer.

Scotty wrote:@JJJ Do you think you can see what I'm talking about with the qualifications that would make you a dangerous player? I would say you com off super town on the surface level, but I can also see you seeeeeemlessly slipping into badland. Thoughts?

If you think I'm dangerous that's fair. I think that's an irrelevant point though unless you actually observe content in my posts that suggests I might indeed be "slipping into badland". Is that what you see? I could make the same claim about you Scotty -- you're a dangerous player who I think would be able to shift from active-pro civilian neutral to baddie pretty seamlessly. That doesn't mean I actually think you've done that.

I'm just going to say that "I don't think we should lynch ______ because I don't think BR/LC would have made _______ a recruiter." is a sentence I will never employ again in this game after this post. I think it's a very dangerous perspective and honestly seems contrary to the spirit of Mafia in the first place. Y'all know these hosts better than I do, but

Spacedaisy wrote:I'll repeat here that I suspect get not only because the lynch for switched but because her response to it seemed exaggerated. I would expect her to be all, "I don't know why" but now a paragraph of her going on about how she is so confused and she doesn't know what happened and she em pmed the hosts, etc. It is overkill. It don't feel like a natural civilian response. I think She knows why the lynch got switched, in fact I think it was her teammate that did it.

Could you show me exactly which post you're referring to here? If you have a chance could you also highlight direct quotes in it that give you this impression?

TinyBubbles wrote:RIP unfurl ? and i am confused, why did unfurl get lynched and not me,according to the poll i got the most votes...?? if by some miracle im still alive i will be happy to address any questions! somewhat caught up and have time today

Bubbles, everyone seems to regard this post with suspicion and I can see why. It comes across as feigned surprise. I think you might come across like this in general though (no offense intended!

), so I'd like to hear from you.

Why did you think you might still die after it was revealed unfurl was lynched?

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Here's an (unnecessary) updated list of player post links with Bass 2.0 included.

Not unnecessary at all. I just saved a link to this post to my desktop, thank you.

aapje wrote:I'm not sure I would agree based on the win conditions:
Civvie group 1 needs to defeat baddie group 1 and 2
Civvie group 2 needs to defeat baddie group 1 and 2
Baddie group 1 needs to defeat civvie group 1 and baddie group 2
Baddie group 2 needs to defeat civvie group 2 and baddie group 1
Each baddie group only needs to eliminate half of the civvies and none of the neutrals, while having to eliminate all of the other baddies. Then take in account they will take over the other team's kill if they are all eliminated and it would make the most sense for them to actively go after the other baddies.

I agree that both baddie teams are actively hunting for one another. I just don't think that's the only motive behind their votes. Self-preservation of their team is paramount and anyone not on it is going to be considered a decent enough lynch.

Turnip Head wrote:
aapje wrote:
Turnip Head wrote:I switched my vote.
Weird post by TH, not even specifying to whom or why he switched his vote.
I voted for Jay, and I did it for science. I'll vote for him again though, I think he's been recruited.

Talk to me Turnip. Share your feelings with me.

Devin the Omniscient wrote:
Turnip Head wrote:
Devin the Omniscient wrote:
Turnip Head wrote:Or the lynch was switched to make us lynch Bubbles again
If that's the case, why not just let her be lynched the first time?? I'm with SD on this one.
Because if you have a lynch switch power, why not use it?
I guess.

I think it's clear cut honestly -- that lynch switch gets used regardless of Bubbles' alignment. If she's bad, it delays her death. If she's not on the team responsible for the switch, then it ensures someone else dies instead AND Bubbles remains a highly likely lynch after that. Two for the price of one.

Dom wrote:What does ISO stand for? I was afraid to ask earlier.

Isolation. It can be used to describe a player's isolated post history (my post history is my ISO) in a game. Or it can be the actual compiled analysis itself (this is the ISO I've compiled on JJJ). Or as a verb (I ISO'd JJJ and decided he seems good/bad/whatever).

Dom wrote:...what is the difference?

An ISO is never meant to be a case. Sometimes it becomes one if that's how the content shakes out, but usually it is just the live-action development of a read. I tend to ISO players either when I don't have a read on them, or if I have an intuition and want to check it against actual thread data to make sure it fits.

The act of compiling posts within an ISO and stating my perspective of them is how I generate reads of people. It's hard to do in a game this large, but in many games I like to ISO absolutely everyone. The rainbows so many people seem to hate are my fault too; they're typically the end-result of a series of ISOs in which I summarize my reads in a tiered order.

Some ISOs end with strong civilian reads. Some end with "I have no idea what this person is" reads. Some end with baddie reads. That's how objectivity happens -- I don't know what the read will be until I'm finished with the ISO compilation. Good points and bad points are weighed against one another to come to a final conclusion.

When I build a case I don't have the same objective. I am not developing a read; I am explaining a read that is already there (a baddie read). The point of a case is to show everyone else why I feel a certain player might be bad, and to influence them to either join my cause or tell me where they disagree.

Turnip Head wrote:Have JJJ and MovingPictures ever had BTSC before?

He and I were on a 3-man mason team in RYM84. Otherwise no.

Dom wrote:I just think your language was extreme. I think you made no effort to be objective despite the fact that you said you had. You made it seem like I was kicking a cat. This is what I was anticipating in my "asshole" post.

I think if you compare the language I employed against you with the language I used in other suspicion I've expressed in this game and on this site, you won't find it so terribly different as you seem to think.

Also, you might be associating my ISOs with this case against you -- that would be one reason I could see you legitimately feeling I was being less objective than I usually am. There's a reason for that: when I ISO players, it's because I am generating a read -- not clarifying a read that exists already. With you I wasn't doing that; I had already developed suspicion based on your conduct in that exchange with MP and I explained exactly why in the form of a case.

One thing people have done constantly here since I joined is confuse my ISOs with my cases. They aren't the same thing and the language between them is likely to be different in severity.

Dom wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Dom, you are literally asking why I don't use the same language when describing suspects as I do when describing people I don't suspect. Who in the history of Mafia has ever done that?
I am asking why you used language to create a bias. This is not something I have really observed you do. Maybe because it's against me, I'm noticing it more, but I just think your post was so ridiculously biased. You used only friendly, non threatening language about the guy who literally threw a tantrum and told other people to stop playing (that is new territory as far as I'm concerned). Meanwhile, you made no effort, in my opinion to remain objective.

I think you're misguided. I haven't seen this type of behavior as a pattern.

I might be misguided. It wouldn't be the first time.

I didn't use negative language about MP because I didn't think his behavior was indicative of him being a baddie. Alignment is my only concern here. I did see things in your posts during that exchange that I found suspicious, and that was reflected in my explanation of that suspicion. I think you'll find I am generally harder on people I suspect than I am on people I don't suspect.

Isn't everyone?

Dom wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I hope it's clear that when I say I've played with MP more than anyone on TS, I don't mean I have played with him more than other TSers have played with him. That's definitely not true.
to clarify, do you mean you have played with MP more than you have played with other players on TS?
I did not interpret that original statement as such.

Yes, that's what I mean. I have played with MP more than I have played with anyone else on TS (save for Sloonei, duh).

I hope it's clear that when I say I've played with MP more than anyone on TS, I don't mean I have played with him more than other TSers have played with him. That's definitely not true.

Dom, you are literally asking why I don't use the same language when describing suspects as I do when describing people I don't suspect. Who in the history of Mafia has ever done that?

Master of Shadows wrote:votes JJJ

, man.

.

Dom wrote:But please, continue to conflate the issues.

WTF is this sentence? Why is it here? This kind of snark just serves to irritate.

When I accuse people of things I do my best to speak from a detached and objective perspective. I may not always succeed, but I try.

thellama73 wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
thellama73 wrote:JJJ, I read your case on Dom, and I have to side with Dom here. He was not being inconsistent in criticizing MP's hypocrisy while acknowledging his propensity for outbursts. Those are not the same thing.
Would you agree that the causes of MP's hypocrisy and his emotional outburst were the same thing?

MM accused MP. DH did not accuse MP.

MP hates accusations.
I don't know the causes of MP's hypocrisy, because I don't know his alignment.

I'm saying that in my experience with MP, his emotional responses to being accused often feature some manner of No U. I saw it in his dealings with Epignosis in Economics, I'm pretty sure it happened in Broadway, and I know it's happened in our RYM games.

Dom wrote:I have played Mafia with MP for years. You, JJJ, were extremely condescending in your wording of my history with MP. So I was condescending back. You now know how your words were-- manipulative. That post literally used the most vitriolic language when it came to descriptions of my actions, but benign tones when it came to MP's. It does not have the level-headedness I've come to expect from you.

I have come to expect tantrums from MP over the years; however, this is not a free pass for him.

Why do you expect to be treated the same way in the same post? I am suspicious of you and not suspicious of MP.

I didn't intend to be condescending at any point, so I apologize for coming across that way. I honestly don't know what you're referring to even, but I apologize regardless. Condescension is frustrating.

thellama73 wrote:JJJ, I read your case on Dom, and I have to side with Dom here. He was not being inconsistent in criticizing MP's hypocrisy while acknowledging his propensity for outbursts. Those are not the same thing.

Would you agree that the causes of MP's hypocrisy and his emotional outburst were the same thing?

MM accused MP. DH did not accuse MP.

MP hates accusations.

Search found 458 matches