The Syndicate

I look forward to hearing Snowman's thoughts once he's fully caught up. I'd especially like to know what he thinks of boo's defense of him.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote: I read "He will not have had a chance to respond" as "He lost his chance to respond" since boo will follow that opportunity up with a vote (if his vote was available that is). Is that wrong?

That's not how I understand it. I understand it as "he has not had a chance to respond, despite having nearly two days to do so."

Maybe boo will address that discrepancy then.

There isn't one. There's llama, lying and spinning things, which is what he's been doing, and is apparently what he is going to continue doing.

So - ya'll make my head hurt and caused me to steal one more beer than I should have.

Keep this up and I'm stealing SVSs cookie stash.

Here's the thing I find troubling about Snowman. Even with 10 pages of catching up, he had to see in the first page or so that he was getting heat. He was here tonight - and the whole thread rejoiced to hear his input. You'd think that would make him go "Oh, I should prolly get up to speed if everyone's so anxious to hear what I have to say."

And he jokes around a bit more and leaves. Nothing more about not being quite caught up and will finish in the am - nothing addressing *anything* that's been said about him. Some jokes and he's out.

I know Donner was unconventional because so many people keep saying it was. But ya'll lynched people in the game right? I mean, it shouldn't be too hard for a guy in his second game to figure out that more than one person suspects his behavior and he should prolly come talk about it right?

To me, that coupled with everything else that's been said about him. Make me think my vote is likely going there tomorrow. I'm willing to sleep on it. Because I always prefer voting a late as I can anyway. But yea. Not lookin' so good Mr. Snowman.

S~V~S wrote:

thellama73 wrote:SVS also ignored my question about whether boo's claim that Snowman had no chance to defend himself was plainly false.

I don't think it was plainly false, as it was not something quantifiable. You cannot quantify "a chance" and you are attempting to do so. Ther may not be a fancy schmancy logical fallacy name for it, but it is not something that can be set into a true/false black/white framework in my opinion.

And THAT, right there, has been the problem here from the get go. All you guys are trying to factually frame vague/undefinable suppositions into the language of logic, and it can't be done.

Linki, there you go, ignoring reality in the name of unquantifiable "absolutes". This is not an argument of absolutes.

Holy shit. Things just got all philosophical up in here.

I'm glad I decided to take a step back and give other people a chance to talk today. It's been very informative. Here are my thoughts as they are right now.

1. Can someone outline the case against FZ? I'm not sure I understand it. From what I've read of her post, she's made a solid effort to think critically and hasn't really said anything that stands out as mafia. What am I missing that has someone like Epi calling her his top suspect?

2. Speaking of Epi, I have no idea what he's doing anymore. I thought his "eye question" was innocent. I figured that since he's watching the show now, he just wanted to have some fun night cycle talk. But his initial response to people calling it otherwise was uncharacteristically flustered. And then there is the whole "I'm not going to out anyone." thing.

3. Boo. I have to agree with with llama on this one. I see his comments on Snowman as odd. While not directly contradicting his early statements, because you can define "non-participant" in a number of ways, his stance on Snowman still strikes me as odd. It feels like he's trying to defend Snowman, without being obvious about it.

4. Which brings me to Snowman. I'm likely to vote for him today. I haven't seen a single constructive post from him. He is clearly not silenced, so there is no excuse for that. Bea hit it on the head.

bea wrote:So - ya'll make my head hurt and caused me to steal one more beer than I should have.

Keep this up and I'm stealing SVSs cookie stash.

Here's the thing I find troubling about Snowman. Even with 10 pages of catching up, he had to see in the first page or so that he was getting heat. He was here tonight - and the whole thread rejoiced to hear his input. You'd think that would make him go "Oh, I should prolly get up to speed if everyone's so anxious to hear what I have to say."

And he jokes around a bit more and leaves. Nothing more about not being quite caught up and will finish in the am - nothing addressing *anything* that's been said about him. Some jokes and he's out.

I know Donner was unconventional because so many people keep saying it was. But ya'll lynched people in the game right? I mean, it shouldn't be too hard for a guy in his second game to figure out that more than one person suspects his behavior and he should prolly come talk about it right?

To me, that coupled with everything else that's been said about him. Make me think my vote is likely going there tomorrow. I'm willing to sleep on it. Because I always prefer voting a late as I can anyway. But yea. Not lookin' so good Mr. Snowman.

Now see, I thought he was not trying to be "not obvious" about it. Which is one of the points that gives me pause here. Boo does not strike me as someone who has issues throwing people under the bus. Like, at all. Maybe even irl (just kidding, boo. Maybe. ).

So if boo had a floundering baddie teammate, I doubt he would be so overt.

As for FZ, I myself have backed off a but, and put that into a holding pattern, her responses seemed pretty "on" to me. I am not out of the woods as regards her, but not quite as pinged by her overall.

And as Llama says, Snowman does have a pretty good idea what he's doing. I am fairly sure that once he settles in, he's going to join Epi & Llama throwing around jargony, psychological terms. So I am taking the opposite viewpoint. I think he would be acting more seriously if he were bad. Plus neither he nor Zomba, his wife, have been around much at all. Hopefully they have time for us today, or my Crystal Ball (next to my plate of cookies) sees a Snowman melting away in the very near future.

I am going to be around much of the day, pending D & D at RM. So I plan to read back on a few people. Although I was feeling fairly polarized after the Day Zero poll, I am starting to have both good & bad feels about people on both sides of the L/Light issue. And no discernible opinion on others. I find the first part reassuring; this tells me that the Zero poll options were not so clear cut, and that the reasons people had for voting either L/Light or Traditional Lynch could be valid. If it obviously split on party lines, that would be lame. The seond, no discerible opinion on some people that have been posting a lot and were pretty involved early, worries me.

Coffee, reading, life, more reading. BBL.

S~V~S wrote:

Epignosis wrote:S~V~S, I still feel strongly about a vote for FZ. However, these new boo revelations have me atingle. What say you?

I am not voting for boo unless he says something really amazingly bad. While we have some philosophical differences re low posting and whether it's better to get rid of low posters from the perspective of PLAYERS v. ROLES, I am seeing his points more so than I am seeing yours or Llamas regarding Snowman.

I'm still catching up, but this is where I am right now with boo.

I think Epig and boo may have some, to use SVS' phrase, "philosophical differences". But I think llama knows what he is talking about and intentionally misinterpreted boo's answer to several questions now (two I believe).

I was thinking I'd be in between TH and Russ for a vote today, but llama is jumping up there too.

Epignosis wrote:I refuse to out other players even if my refusal to do so leads to others voting for me.

Ummm...is this your way of saying you have BTSC teammates?

thellama73 wrote:I voted for Snowman, not for being a non-participant, but based on things he said.

Snowman came into the thread and saw that I voted for him and people were talking about him. He made a jokey post and left.

Le snipped because I totally, completely forgot this happened. I think is was his jokey post about Clayfighter IIRC.

Hmmmmm....I really need to think about this now....

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

Epignosis wrote:I refuse to out other players even if my refusal to do so leads to others voting for me.

Ummm...is this your way of saying you have BTSC teammates?

Nobody has BTSC teammateS.

And no.

Alright. So apparently, Snowman has responded. And it was basically another jokey post where he addressed absolutely nothing that was said about him. He just said he was still trying to catch up since he hadn't been around for almost 24 hours.

I think I know which road I'm going down now. Give me a bit to mull it over and I'll post my thoughts.

Epignosis wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

Epignosis wrote:I refuse to out other players even if my refusal to do so leads to others voting for me.

Ummm...is this your way of saying you have BTSC teammates?

Nobody has BTSC teammateS.

Not true. Someone does. It's in the roles.

S~V~S wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

Epignosis wrote:I refuse to out other players even if my refusal to do so leads to others voting for me.

Ummm...is this your way of saying you have BTSC teammates?

Nobody has BTSC teammateS.

Not true. Someone does. It's in the roles.

Emphasis on the S.

Wow @ last night's clash. Just wow.

In light of Snowman's new entirely lukewarm reaction to, putting in his words, "everything happening" in here right now and also everything involving him, I probably don't have to say much more about where my vote will probably go. I personally have nothing more to add to my reasoning. I can still wait on voting, though, until later this evening, mainly because that's my usual habit of voting anyway, but also in case maybe, just maybe, providence helps him make an actual rebuttal to all this. Plus, tonight both Film and Death Note end their Day phases, and I'll personally want to focus more on Film, just so you know.

SVS, I think Zomba has been much more active, much more confrontational and even much more suspicious based on her activity so far. There's really no comparison between them, as the ones sharing the new player status.

That was a god sleep. I feel better.

thellama73 wrote:That was a god sleep. I feel better.

God?

As in...Kami?

Ricochet wrote:

thellama73 wrote:That was a god sleep. I feel better.

God?

As in...Kami?

More like

...in R'lyeh...

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Long Con wrote:So if people are mostly individuals, their biggest motivation is going to be personal survival. A Detective, trying to survive long enough to somehow catch a Kira, will want to be really careful about what he says, so as not to attract too much suspicion... unless he wants to try and be extra-outspoken, to both attract suspicion AND seem like a useful player to have around. Wait, no, I just described how a baddie would probably want to play. See?

After talking this out with myself, I find myself on boo's side of lynching low-posters... at least until some game elements coalesce into something more tangible. Hoping that will happen. Also, I tend to agree with his other points about low posters. I don't think it's an acceptable tactic to specifically not post so as to make it to a later part of the game, knowing that people won't vote for them.

But, but, you just said that the quiet players sitting and watching could be detectives, yet you agree with boo and want to lynch them?

I said the quiet ones could be detectives, or the outspoken ones could be... and that the baddies would probably play the same way.

Epignosis wrote:My suspects right NOW:

FZ. still number 1

boo is number 2

Snowman is now number 3

(Russ, I don't think can be lynched so let's ignore him)

I will likely vote one of these. But I would like to hear from others, so I will bow out of the discussion unless you have anything to ask me directly.

What is it about these people that makes you think they have baddie motivations? I ask from the point of view that I put forth earlier, that the lack of baddie BTSC and team-knowledge changes how we can form suspicions as compared to a standard Mafia game. Are your suspicions coming from a 'standard' place? How have you changed the way you look for baddies in this very different game?

Epignosis wrote:

Elohcin wrote:I can never tell when you are joking and when you aren't llama.

Epi, that cute girl wouldn't have you baby. I'm saving your dignity.

I know where the grammatical side comes from around here.

I can never tell when he's not Llama either. Is he Llama right now? If he's joking, he is Llama, I think. Also,I can't believe that bitch at work won't even have your baby. Some people.

Epignosis wrote:I refuse to out other players even if my refusal to do so leads to others voting for me.

What do you mean, when did outing another player come up?

Never mind:

S~V~S wrote:OK, Epi. You just go ahead and don't say anything about something no one asked you to talk about anyhow.

That covers it, and you weren't explaining anyway.

Outing someone doesn't necessarily mean BTSC. Is there some sort of 'checker' role? Epig could have info on someone, and is choosing not to out them directly. But him saying what he did there has led me to that conclusion, so maybe he DID infodrop by saying it? Maybe he rolechecked boo last night and found him to be a baddie. If that's true, can I even vote for boo in good conscience? Epig will surely deny any of this, but will I believe him? Maybe he won't deny or confirm because it's already so sticky. Maybe he will ignore this entirely. Maybe just an emoticon. Yes, I imagine that's how it will go. And I will judge his response based on the emoticon he uses, and how I interpret that emoticon's intentions.

I have no info on anyone. My comment yesterday had an entirely different meaning, and in retrospect, may have been born out of a misreading of something someone else said.

Ok so I caught up. Here are my thoughts

1. I'm not sure what's up with snowman. I really think he should have said something that wasn't all jokey and talked about the reasons people were talking about him.

2.I not sure about llama I always seem to read him wrong.

3.I don't even know what to make out of epi and boo.

Epignosis wrote:

S~V~S wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

Epignosis wrote:I refuse to out other players even if my refusal to do so leads to others voting for me.

Ummm...is this your way of saying you have BTSC teammates?

Nobody has BTSC teammateS.

Not true. Someone does. It's in the roles.

Emphasis on the S.

You empha$ized it wrong.

Long Con wrote:

Epignosis wrote:My suspects right NOW:

FZ. still number 1

boo is number 2

Snowman is now number 3

(Russ, I don't think can be lynched so let's ignore him)

I will likely vote one of these. But I would like to hear from others, so I will bow out of the discussion unless you have anything to ask me directly.

What is it about these people that makes you think they have baddie motivations? I ask from the point of view that I put forth earlier, that the lack of baddie BTSC and team-knowledge changes how we can form suspicions as compared to a standard Mafia game. Are your suspicions coming from a 'standard' place? How have you changed the way you look for baddies in this very different game?

BTSC or not, guilty people are still guilty and that affects their mentalities. I look for discrepancies in tone and behavior- minor things that do or do not match the impressions I have of the individual.

Epignosis wrote:

Long Con wrote:

Epignosis wrote:My suspects right NOW:

FZ. still number 1

boo is number 2

Snowman is now number 3

(Russ, I don't think can be lynched so let's ignore him)

I will likely vote one of these. But I would like to hear from others, so I will bow out of the discussion unless you have anything to ask me directly.

What is it about these people that makes you think they have baddie motivations? I ask from the point of view that I put forth earlier, that the lack of baddie BTSC and team-knowledge changes how we can form suspicions as compared to a standard Mafia game. Are your suspicions coming from a 'standard' place? How have you changed the way you look for baddies in this very different game?

BTSC or not, guilty people are still guilty and that affects their mentalities. I look for discrepancies in tone and behavior- minor things that do or do not match the impressions I have of the individual.

And Light is an expert at controlling feelings and emotions when put under duress. Are you up to the task?

Epignosis wrote:I have no info on anyone. My comment yesterday had an entirely different meaning, and in retrospect, may have been born out of a misreading of something someone else said.

Suuure, I read you loud and clear.

Epignosis wrote:BTSC or not, guilty people are still guilty and that affects their mentalities. I look for discrepancies in tone and behavior- minor things that do or do not match the impressions I have of the individual.

So you're going with a very subjective approach here, starting with the assumption that the players you analyze truly conform to your impressions of them.

Bass_the_Clever wrote:Ok so I caught up. Here are my thoughts

1. I'm not sure what's up with snowman. I really think he should have said something that wasn't all jokey and talked about the reasons people were talking about him.

2.I not sure about llama I always seem to read him wrong.

3.I don't even know what to make out of epi and boo.

There is a lot that you don't know.

Long Con wrote:

Epignosis wrote:BTSC or not, guilty people are still guilty and that affects their mentalities. I look for discrepancies in tone and behavior- minor things that do or do not match the impressions I have of the individual.

So you're going with a very subjective approach here, starting with the assumption that the players you analyze truly conform to your impressions of them.

It's what I've got to work with. If you want objective, we could all role claim and lynch the matches.

Epignosis wrote:

Long Con wrote:

Epignosis wrote:BTSC or not, guilty people are still guilty and that affects their mentalities. I look for discrepancies in tone and behavior- minor things that do or do not match the impressions I have of the individual.

So you're going with a very subjective approach here, starting with the assumption that the players you analyze truly conform to your impressions of them.

It's what I've got to work with. If you want objective, we could all role claim and lynch the matches.

Sounds good. I am a detective, are you?

Epignosis wrote:

S~V~S wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

Epignosis wrote:I refuse to out other players even if my refusal to do so leads to others voting for me.

Ummm...is this your way of saying you have BTSC teammates?

Nobody has BTSC teammateS.

Not true. Someone does. It's in the roles.

Emphasis on the S.

That remark could be read either way, but OK. Since I am the Main Bitcher In Charge about over reading into peoples remarks, though, I will give you that. My bad.

Long Con wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

Long Con wrote:

Epignosis wrote:BTSC or not, guilty people are still guilty and that affects their mentalities. I look for discrepancies in tone and behavior- minor things that do or do not match the impressions I have of the individual.

So you're going with a very subjective approach here, starting with the assumption that the players you analyze truly conform to your impressions of them.

It's what I've got to work with. If you want objective, we could all role claim and lynch the matches.

Sounds good. I am a detective, are you?

Long Con, I am always a detective.

I'm voting Epi. I won't be around the rest of the day period. Have fun.

Hey guys, back again! What's going....HOLY CRAP I'M GONNA DIE?!



Epi and DH have an epic game of chicken that could have been ripped right from an 80s action movie, and Epi flinched. Epi became the target of attention because he never followed through with his threat to kill DH. Llama jumped in to deflect to Snowman with the airtight argument of "what's his deal"? Since then, he's expanded his anti-Snowman argument to include:

+ what's his deal?
+ I called him out, he saw it and didn't repond immediately
+ He hasn't posted since yesterday.

I hopped online last night, immediately recognized that I didn't have time to wade through the day's comments, so I made a quick "not a baddie" statement for the press, then hit the sack.

Now the argument expands to:

+ what's his deal?
+ I called him out, he saw it and didn't repond immediately
+ He hasn't posted since yesterday
+ He can't be as dumb as he sounds
+ Does he understand the word 'Bandwagon', because we accused him of hopping on one, and he didn't care (forgot to mention that one earlier)
+ He still didn't offer a convincing argument for why we should believe he's a civvie.

I'm unsure of what I might do differently if I were bad. I am sure that I'm playing a game, I guess I'm a more casual player than some, but I'm still willing to hop on once or twice a day share my two bits, use my power if I have one, vote, then rinse and repeat the following day.

Buuuuuuuut, it is a social deduction game. Maybe good civvies behave differently, if this were live, I'd be looking at faces and body language. On a bulletin board, we look at posts, and something about how I post strikes some as a Stone-Cold-Kira. I'm not disappointed, but I want to improve and better support my team in the future, while still having fun. Maybe one day I will earn the "Well, that's just him, he's always like that" status that Epi and Russ seem to benefit from.

Don't kill me guys, I've got a lot to offer. Llama's got it in for me, which is weird, and his circular argument of "I think he's guilty because I said he was guilty so I think he's guilty" doesn't hold water.

Or do, and I'll haunt you with my spooky red text.

Snowman wrote: Don't kill me guys, I've got a lot to offer. Llama's got it in for me, which is weird, and his circular argument of "I think he's guilty because I said he was guilty so I think he's guilty" doesn't hold water.

It's not weird at all. I always have it in for somebody.

Also, that is not my argument for why I think you are bad, as I think you well know.

Snowman wrote:Epi and DH have an epic game of chicken that could have been ripped right from an 80s action movie, and Epi flinched. Epi became the target of attention because he never followed through with his threat to kill DH.

Epignosis wrote:

Snowman wrote:Epi and DH have an epic game of chicken that could have been ripped right from an 80s action movie, and Epi flinched. Epi became the target of attention because he never followed through with his threat to kill DH.

Epignosis wrote:

Snowman wrote:Epi and DH have an epic game of chicken that could have been ripped right from an 80s action movie, and Epi flinched. Epi became the target of attention because he never followed through with his threat to kill DH.

Oops, I meant Russ, not DH.

Epignosis wrote:I have no info on anyone. My comment yesterday had an entirely different meaning, and in retrospect, may have been borne out of a misreading of something someone else said.

fixed this for you, where's my cookie

Alright. I'm glad I waited for Snowman to properly respond now. Here's where I currently stand:

- I'm not sure what to think about the whole llama/Epig/boo thing. I think there's a lot of misinterpretations going on there. Of the three of them though, I think llama is the one who has done the most in terms of misinterpreting and circular logic. Granted, all of them have, but I think it started with llama claiming boo never answered his question about how long one should wait to vote for someone who doesn't respond. I think boo answered it, but llama twisted his words to say he didn't....HOWEVER, Snowman had also bothered to actually respond (something I had completely forgotten about), and it was a jokey post at first. So by that train of thought, then boo was also wrong. Because he claimed Snowman hadn't responded, when it fact he had.

- I'm still just as suspicious of Russ and TH. My opinion hasn't changed much there. Also, Russ seems to have popped in for a bit early on Day 2, then fallen off the face of the Earth again. Does anyone know if he's been around since he last posted or not?

- After Snowman gave his argument, I feel a bit better about that whole situation.

I'm going to go eat some lunch and then vote before I leave for work. But I think my vote for sure is going to one of the following: boo, llama, TH, or Russ.

I just have to say that this game has been so much freaking fun to host already, folks, so thanks for not only signing up, but for participating and making this a good time.

On that note, the lynch ends in less than 7.5 hours, so you better vote.

MovingPictures07 wrote:I just have to say that this game has been so much freaking fun to host already, folks, so thanks for not only signing up, but for participating and making this a good time.

On that note, the lynch ends in less than 7.5 hours, so you better vote.

Modkill all the non-voters pls.

Some of you probably think I'm joking too.

Turnip Head wrote:

Epignosis wrote:I have no info on anyone. My comment yesterday had an entirely different meaning, and in retrospect, may have been borne out of a misreading of something someone else said.

fixed this for you, where's my cookie

That's not correct, semantics boy.

birdwithteeth11 wrote:Alright. I'm glad I waited for Snowman to properly respond now. Here's where I currently stand:

- I'm not sure what to think about the whole llama/Epig/boo thing. I think there's a lot of misinterpretations going on there. Of the three of them though, I think llama is the one who has done the most in terms of misinterpreting and circular logic. Granted, all of them have, but I think it started with llama claiming boo never answered his question about how long one should wait to vote for someone who doesn't respond. I think boo answered it, but llama twisted his words to say he didn't....HOWEVER, Snowman had also bothered to actually respond (something I had completely forgotten about), and it was a jokey post at first. So by that train of thought, then boo was also wrong. Because he claimed Snowman hadn't responded, when it fact he had.

- I'm still just as suspicious of Russ and TH. My opinion hasn't changed much there. Also, Russ seems to have popped in for a bit early on Day 2, then fallen off the face of the Earth again. Does anyone know if he's been around since he last posted or not?

- After Snowman gave his argument, I feel a bit better about that whole situation.

I'm going to go eat some lunch and then vote before I leave for work. But I think my vote for sure is going to one of the following: boo, llama, TH, or Russ.

llama wasn't claiming Snowman had come in and posted during the day either, I think we had both thought that post happened during N1. Someone requoted it eventually, which is when llama decided I knew it happened (early during) D2, and he didn't.

thellama73 wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:

Epignosis wrote:I have no info on anyone. My comment yesterday had an entirely different meaning, and in retrospect, may have been borne out of a misreading of something someone else said.

fixed this for you, where's my cookie

That's not correct, semantics boy.

Semantics Boy, the plucky sidekick of Fallacy Man!

boo wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:Alright. I'm glad I waited for Snowman to properly respond now. Here's where I currently stand:

- I'm not sure what to think about the whole llama/Epig/boo thing. I think there's a lot of misinterpretations going on there. Of the three of them though, I think llama is the one who has done the most in terms of misinterpreting and circular logic. Granted, all of them have, but I think it started with llama claiming boo never answered his question about how long one should wait to vote for someone who doesn't respond. I think boo answered it, but llama twisted his words to say he didn't....HOWEVER, Snowman had also bothered to actually respond (something I had completely forgotten about), and it was a jokey post at first. So by that train of thought, then boo was also wrong. Because he claimed Snowman hadn't responded, when it fact he had.

- I'm still just as suspicious of Russ and TH. My opinion hasn't changed much there. Also, Russ seems to have popped in for a bit early on Day 2, then fallen off the face of the Earth again. Does anyone know if he's been around since he last posted or not?

- After Snowman gave his argument, I feel a bit better about that whole situation.

I'm going to go eat some lunch and then vote before I leave for work. But I think my vote for sure is going to one of the following: boo, llama, TH, or Russ.

llama wasn't claiming Snowman had come in and posted during the day either, I think we had both thought that post happened during N1. Someone requoted it eventually, which is when llama decided I knew it happened (early during) D2, and he didn't.

Actually, I assumed you overlooked it, as I initially did, which I why I asked if the knowledge of that post changed your opinion about Snowman not having a chance to respond. You never answered me though.

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:I just have to say that this game has been so much freaking fun to host already, folks, so thanks for not only signing up, but for participating and making this a good time.

On that note, the lynch ends in less than 7.5 hours, so you better vote.

Modkill all the non-voters pls.

Some of you probably think I'm joking too.

Can you say that if you haven't voted yet?

My friend is running late, so of course I will come check in mafia.

thellama73 wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:

Epignosis wrote:I have no info on anyone. My comment yesterday had an entirely different meaning, and in retrospect, may have been borne out of a misreading of something someone else said.

fixed this for you, where's my cookie

That's not correct, semantics boy.

are you sure? I just looked it up and now my head is spinning

Snowman wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:

Epignosis wrote:I have no info on anyone. My comment yesterday had an entirely different meaning, and in retrospect, may have been borne out of a misreading of something someone else said.

fixed this for you, where's my cookie

That's not correct, semantics boy.

Semantics Boy, the plucky sidekick of Fallacy Man!

You're right Epi and llama. My bad. *skulks away cookieless*

Turnip Head wrote:You're right Epi and llama. My bad. *skulks away cookieless*

Yes, "borne" means "carried." "Born" means "brought about" "or brought into existence," so only the latter makes sense in Epi'd context. Don't feel bad. He is an English teacher and I am a professional writer.

thellama73 wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:You're right Epi and llama. My bad. *skulks away cookieless*

Yes, "borne" means "carried." "Born" means "brought about" "or brought into existence," so only the latter makes sense in Epi'd context. Don't feel bad. He is an English teacher and I am a professional writer.

Those two professions got nothing on Semantics Boy!

The cases on FZ and Snowman seem pretty weak to me. I hope neither of them get lynched. But where's FZ? She has been pretty quiet...