I wasn't being rhetoricalS~V~S wrote: Linki ha ha

Moderator: Community Team
I wasn't being rhetoricalS~V~S wrote: Linki ha ha
Epignosis wrote:If llama is good, it means we exist in a universe in which multitasking llama can call out the first of two mafia while simultaneously calling out two civilians.
I don't want to live in that universe.
The second half of your statement seems to indicate that the first might not be true.S~V~S wrote:He backed off of me, though. And LC put the SVS suspicion back in the thread by voting for me.
I wasn't ha ha ing at youMade wrote:I wasn't being rhetoricalS~V~S wrote: Linki ha ha
Yeah, I thought both LC and SVS had explained their feelings about each other quite clearly. This feels too much like JC trying to play it safe and not take sides.Canucklehead wrote:Juliets, this is a really weird question. LC and SVS have had several back-and-forths where his suspicion of her was outlined and explained in great detail, and her responses were also very detailed. What more specificity are you looking for? Or are you subtly trying to keep putting the SVS suspicion out into the thread in the hopes that people will latch onto it? I'm not sure who you might be trying to protect by doing this....juliets wrote:LonG Con, if you're still around, can you be more specific about why you are voting for SVS? Is it something she said, some way that she's been acting, or just a feeling?
linki - yes bullz i ask a lot of questions. It's a hallmark of my style.![]()
Need to think on it...
Thank you! BWT says you've expressed your feelings about LC quite well, but I am not seeing it in a reread, so I am interested to hear your thoughts.S~V~S wrote:Llama I will address you and Made too when I get home. It is was easier to pull quotes at home than on phone.
Epignosis wrote:If llama is good, it means we exist in a universe in which multitasking llama can call out the first of two mafia while simultaneously calling out two civilians.
I don't want to live in that universe.
I know you do. But I feel like LC has made it fairly clear why he suspects SVS multiple times, and she has offered detailed defenses.juliets wrote:I'm not sure what you mean by me trying not to take sides? Why would I have even asked the question if I'm trying to stay out of it and not take sides? I ask a lot of questions, sometimes they are good and sometimes others may see them as foolish but that's how I baddie hunt.
Huh, nice catch. (Or at least nice articulate of the catch). While at points I didn't understand their arguement (see back when they were talking about warnings) clarification would of been asked for, not more discussion of each other...birdwithteeth11 wrote:Yeah, I thought both LC and SVS had explained their feelings about each other quite clearly. This feels too much like JC trying to play it safe and not take sides.Canucklehead wrote:Juliets, this is a really weird question. LC and SVS have had several back-and-forths where his suspicion of her was outlined and explained in great detail, and her responses were also very detailed. What more specificity are you looking for? Or are you subtly trying to keep putting the SVS suspicion out into the thread in the hopes that people will latch onto it? I'm not sure who you might be trying to protect by doing this....juliets wrote:LonG Con, if you're still around, can you be more specific about why you are voting for SVS? Is it something she said, some way that she's been acting, or just a feeling?
linki - yes bullz i ask a lot of questions. It's a hallmark of my style.![]()
Need to think on it...
Also, are you talking about the posts where LC thought I had brought up something about Made that was far fetched and it pinged him, and it turned out somebody else brought the point up earlier than me and it didn't ping him. When I finally was able to prove that he backed off that point.birdwithteeth11 wrote: And Bullz, that was the one case about JC that I wasn't quite sure about. Reading back though looking for that Made quote about MR, I remember the conversation LC and JC had had, and that was what pinged me with her before.
Alright. Did you already state what you took away from it or not? Because if you did, I missed it.juliets wrote:Also, are you talking about the posts where LC thought I had brought up something about Made that was far fetched and it pinged him, and it turned out somebody else brought the point up earlier than me and it didn't ping him. When I finally was able to prove that he backed off that point.birdwithteeth11 wrote: And Bullz, that was the one case about JC that I wasn't quite sure about. Reading back though looking for that Made quote about MR, I remember the conversation LC and JC had had, and that was what pinged me with her before.
And BWT I already re-read it and now understand what LC's reasons were.
I won't be displeased, juliets. Don't hold your tongue on my account.juliets wrote:BWT, I'm between a rock and a hard place. Canuck is suspish because she thinks I only asked the question so LC's suspicions would be listed again, thus being bad for SVS (at least thats what I interpreted that she said). You want me to say here what LC's suspicions of SVS are, though I'm not sure of the reason you want me to do that. Either way I go someone is going to be displeased.
I'm not asking you to re-state suspicions. I'm asking you what you opinion is of LC and SVS. Statements like that make me think you're afraid of making a commitment, and make me more likely to think you're bad. But you might be able to clear up what my mind is thinking.juliets wrote:BWT, I'm between a rock and a hard place. Canuck is suspish because she thinks I only asked the question so LC's suspicions would be listed again, thus being bad for SVS (at least thats what I interpreted that she said). You want me to say here what LC's suspicions of SVS are, though I'm not sure of the reason you want me to do that. Either way I go someone is going to be displeased.
BWT - I made a whole list did you not see it? It had who I thought was good, who I wasnt sure of and who I was suspicious of besides made. If you didn't see it I'll find the linky for it.birdwithteeth11 wrote:I'm not asking you to re-state suspicions. I'm asking you what you opinion is of LC and SVS. Statements like that make me think you're afraid of making a commitment, and make me more likely to think you're bad. But you might be able to clear up what my mind is thinking.juliets wrote:BWT, I'm between a rock and a hard place. Canuck is suspish because she thinks I only asked the question so LC's suspicions would be listed again, thus being bad for SVS (at least thats what I interpreted that she said). You want me to say here what LC's suspicions of SVS are, though I'm not sure of the reason you want me to do that. Either way I go someone is going to be displeased.
It's not like I'm saying for sure I'm going to vote for you. I just want to see you give a hard opinion on something. Because I don't feel like you have this game. At all.
Linki: Who is scum-aligned then, in your opinion?
I did, but I couldn't find it for some reason. Could you link me to it?juliets wrote:BWT - I made a whole list did you not see it? It had who I thought was good, who I wasnt sure of and who I was suspicious of besides made. If you didn't see it I'll find the linky for it.birdwithteeth11 wrote:I'm not asking you to re-state suspicions. I'm asking you what you opinion is of LC and SVS. Statements like that make me think you're afraid of making a commitment, and make me more likely to think you're bad. But you might be able to clear up what my mind is thinking.juliets wrote:BWT, I'm between a rock and a hard place. Canuck is suspish because she thinks I only asked the question so LC's suspicions would be listed again, thus being bad for SVS (at least thats what I interpreted that she said). You want me to say here what LC's suspicions of SVS are, though I'm not sure of the reason you want me to do that. Either way I go someone is going to be displeased.
It's not like I'm saying for sure I'm going to vote for you. I just want to see you give a hard opinion on something. Because I don't feel like you have this game. At all.
Linki: Who is scum-aligned then, in your opinion?
And why do you think MR is bad?Keterman wrote:See vote.
His posts appear insincere and contrived to manipulate the civilian masses.birdwithteeth11 wrote:And why do you think MR is bad?Keterman wrote:See vote.
juliets wrote:S~V~S, I am better able to do this backwards, i.e., tell you who I'm not suspecting at the moment:
canuck
dana
hedgeowl
long con
lorab
daisy
SVS
llama
so that leaves:
bea
boogs
bullz
metalmarsh
mr rearranger
mongoose
blooper
reywas
Of those, the ones that I would take a closer look at first are:
boogs
MM
mongoose
reywas
Boogs i have had a pingy feeling about but want to review his most recent posts. MM, made laid out a case on him and was surprised that he got no reaction from the rest of us. I need to re-read him and then re-read made's case because it did not make an impression on me. Mongoose because canuck had a strong feeling about her and I just haven't had time to re-read and think closely about her yet and reywas I was pinged by something early but I can't remember what so that calls for a re-read. If made were off the board these would be the people I looked at most closely unlesssomeone comes forward with something meaty about someone else.
You and Long Con are townies under the influence of dark spirrrritual forccces...S~V~S wrote:Keterman voted MR, Teefies.
Does he have anything to add toMades case, I wonder?
Linki fest
What on Earth does this mean?Keterman wrote:You and Long Con are townies under the influence of dark spirrrritual forccces...S~V~S wrote:Keterman voted MR, Teefies.
Does he have anything to add toMades case, I wonder?
Linki fest
The obvious interpretation is Long Con and SVS are being pitted against each other.Bullzeye wrote:What on Earth does this mean?Keterman wrote:You and Long Con are townies under the influence of dark spirrrritual forccces...S~V~S wrote:Keterman voted MR, Teefies.
Does he have anything to add toMades case, I wonder?
Linki fest
not to say it's the right oneMade wrote:The obvious interpretation is Long Con and SVS are being pitted against each other.Bullzeye wrote:What on Earth does this mean?Keterman wrote:You and Long Con are townies under the influence of dark spirrrritual forccces...S~V~S wrote:Keterman voted MR, Teefies.
Does he have anything to add toMades case, I wonder?
Linki fest
Well yeah but I feel like they've been against each other for longer than any outside force could make them be.Made wrote:The obvious interpretation is Long Con and SVS are being pitted against each other.Bullzeye wrote:What on Earth does this mean?Keterman wrote:You and Long Con are townies under the influence of dark spirrrritual forccces...S~V~S wrote:Keterman voted MR, Teefies.
Does he have anything to add toMades case, I wonder?
Linki fest
It had a pre-emptive strike kind of feel to it, if that makes sense.juliets wrote: I don't remember MR answering this though it may be that he did and I missed it since I didn't really catch this point the first time around. MR, why did you call the BWT/Daisy/Canuck votes in a row coincidental?
And by that I mean happy birthday to your sisternijuukyugou wrote:I'm starving and I just got home from work. I'm going with Made for reasons already stated (simplicity and all that jazz) so I can eat and relax sans computer for a while, as I've been working with one all day and I'd like a breakI plan on being back later tonight to check the thread.
Yay quesadilla time! And happy birthday, MR!
Thank you for responding MR. I'm still a little confused about the first item. You called their votes coincidental which means there was no connection between the three but to explain why you called them coincidental you say they had the feeling of a pre-emptive strike. That would be the opposite of coincidental. A pre-emptive strike would be planned and coordinated I would think. I must be misreading you somehow - can you clear me up?Mister Rearranger wrote:I've been away, Juliet. Here ya go.
It had a pre-emptive strike kind of feel to it, if that makes sense.juliets wrote: I don't remember MR answering this though it may be that he did and I missed it since I didn't really catch this point the first time around. MR, why did you call the BWT/Daisy/Canuck votes in a row coincidental?
This is a weak vote. You should know as well as I do that Made has not done anything against his history as a benevolent gangster.nijuukyugou wrote:I'm starving and I just got home from work. I'm going with Made for reasons already stated (simplicity and all that jazz) so I can eat and relax sans computer for a while, as I've been working with one all day and I'd like a breakI plan on being back later tonight to check the thread.
Yay quesadilla time! And happy birthday, MR!
Boogs wrote:Voting Made because nothing has changed my mind since yesterday. If he turns up bad, we may see who his teammates are.
What was your opinion of voting to save me? I'd be willing to change my vote to MM, another vote from JC (I think she also spoke suspicions of MM) would be enough to at least tie it.Canucklehead wrote:I'm afraid I'm going to forget/miss the vote, since I'm frantically lesson-planning and prepping right now. I didn't have time to go back and look at Made's MR case (wasted too much time trying to prod poor juliets :P ), and I haven't really seen a compelling reason to vote there (though other people seem to?), and I'm not a fan of the "Vote made for informational purposes, yo!" approach (though I get why people think it might be useful), and I'm worried that my phantom MM suspicion is being fueled purely by the fumes of other phantom MM suspicions, since no one seems to be willing/able to pull anything concrete despite apparent efforts to do so......so I might repeat a Mongoose vote, for gutty reasons, and for her response to my suspicions not being enough to shake my gutty feelings.
My only hesitation re: MM is that he hasn't seemed to have had any sort of reaction to all the "I think I'm suspicious of MM but I have no reason or evidence for why" talk (including my own) that has been tossed about in the last few days. When I'm a civ and my name keeps coming up for absolutely no reason at all, I get CRAY CRAY bothered by it and make a big fuss. Maybe that's just not the way MM rolls, but I do find it a little odd that he isn't at all bugged by the really flimsy accusations about him and the repeated resurfacing of his name.
(If such a response exists, please someone point me to it....)
Voting Mongoose for now......open to changing it if I have time/remember to come back before the poll ends and someone makes a really good argument for doing so (not because I don't suspect her, but because I realize that my vote is pretty useless there all by its lonesome)
linki: really interesting point, juliets.
Epignosis wrote:Bitch, my identity is my identity theft protection!