So... I guess we are en route to lynching me. Positives are that me dying won't end the game, negatives are we'll be closer to it.
I was hoping to come here and get to hunting but looks like I gotta defend for a moment, so let me take care of that first.
George Steinbrenner wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 1:39 pm
I could vote for Whatley. What stands out to me most about his posts right now is three similar instances of him giving unsatisfying answers for his questionable behavior:
Tim Whatley wrote: ↑Sat Oct 14, 2017 3:12 pm
George Steinbrenner wrote: ↑Sat Oct 14, 2017 2:41 pm
Tim Whatley wrote: ↑Sat Oct 14, 2017 1:17 pm
George Steinbrenner wrote: ↑Sat Oct 14, 2017 1:12 pm
Do you think it would be unwise for power roles to claim at this point in the game?
Depends really. There are too many variables in play still.
@George Costanza Where are you and where is your head at? Why did you vote the Soup Nazi day 1 but not day 2? You did say you had a bad feeling about him.
This is a true assessment, Whatley. Who knows what roles could be out there at this time? But I have a bone to pick with you here and Big Stein's gonna fight, you better believe that! First, you criticize Elaine because she asked for role claims. But then you can't point to any specific harm that could come from this. You gave a non-answer. The Yankees are all about answers! I don't know how you do it in dentistry, but here we get to the bottom of things! I'm as iffy on Elaine's roleclaim as anybody, but I don't understand what you're saying about her here.
I see, I interpreted what she was asking differently. I see no harm in asking for role claims. I see harm in people who are lying to make vague statements about needing to get more information.
This relates the core of our situation. We are always trying to get more information. I'm sure when we have more information and the time is right to share, we will. Elaine should know this.
Sien, what do you think of Uncle Leo's vote for you? What do you want right now?
Tim Whatley wrote: ↑Tue Oct 17, 2017 2:33 pm
Jerry Seinfeld wrote: ↑Tue Oct 17, 2017 1:52 pm
Jerry Seinfeld wrote: ↑Fri Oct 13, 2017 6:13 pm
Tim Whatley wrote: ↑Fri Oct 13, 2017 5:42 pm
Don't be so upset Jerry, discussion will come.
Your theories regarding Steinbrenner, that's a lie isn't it? At least in regards to having deeper thought on him.
I'm not sure what you mean. I'm lying about welcoming opposing reads on him?
Tim Whatley, I'd like an answer to this question please.
Ah, sorry. I was just poking you to see what would happen. Nothing interesting unfortunately.
Tim Whatley wrote: ↑Tue Oct 17, 2017 11:53 pm
Good evening everyone. I'd like to apologize for my absence today. The office was slammed.
Regarding my Peterman vote without much reason, truth is there was none other than me wanting to gauge reactions. I figured if Peterman was bad, I should pressure vote and see who scrambles. This didn't happen.
I probably would've swapped to Leo or Elaine if it weren't for her hard claim.
I will review my suspects tomorrow. Until then, goodnight.
I don't feel he ever adequately explained why Elaine's plea for information was troublesome, and his two claims of reaction baiting don't really address the underlying thought process of his gameplay. His prod of Jerry came out of nowhere and looks bizarre to me, and he waves his hand at the Peterman vote claiming it was done for reactions, but as far as I can tell he disappeared from the thread soon after and didn't return until well after the deadline had passed.
How was that unsatisfactory? Elaine had pinged me with her claims, I think I had pointed this out. Then for the person who I was suspicious of to come in and request further information (while lying) pushed my ping into full suspicion. Elaine's plea for information wasn't troublesome, more so unnecessary and this is because we were already trying to get more information. We are always trying to get information, that's the only way for us to solve this game and is a given. Fluffy unnecessary posts along side purposeless lies create a chaos state and I didn't think it was assisting us in solving the game, only promoting some scheme she had going on (which I was technically right about).
And my pressure vote on Peterman? Is there anything wrong with that? am I supposed to not hunt and generate information? Also, to go back to the events of my Peterman vote, if I had a reason other than it being a pressure vote, why the hell did I swap to Chiles?
I suppose you either don't have an understanding of what I saw or you don't want my answers to satisfy you currently.