The Syndicate

Favorite Scorsese of the last 25 years?

Poll runs till Mon Feb 16, 2015 1:08:29 am
You may select up to 10 options


Gangs of New York
3
Black Rock (11), Long Con (22), Bass_the_Clever (32) 8%
The Aviator
3
Mongoose (2), Metalmarsh89 (6), birdwithteeth11 (33) 8%
The Departed (remake)
4
Mongoose (3), zeek (16), Bass_the_Clever (31), birdwithteeth11 (34) 11%
Hugo
3
Mongoose (1), Ricochet (7), A Person (15) 8%
Shutter Island
7
Dom (10), Black Rock (12), thellama73 (14), zeek (17), Long Con (21), timmer (26), birdwithteeth11 (35) 19%
Kundun
0
No votes
Bringing Out the Dead
1
timmer (25) 3%
Casino
3
Vompatti (8), Black Rock (13), Bass_the_Clever (30) 8%
Cape Fear (remake)
1
Bass_the_Clever (29) 3%
Goodfellas
7
Metalmarsh89 (5), Roxy (9), zeek (18), Long Con (20), timmer (23), Bass_the_Clever (28), birdwithteeth11 (36) 19%
Shine a Light
1
Mongoose (4) 3%
Wolf of Wall Street
3
zeek (19), timmer (24), Bass_the_Clever (27) 8%

RIP again, again.

Roxy, you and llama both stated that you know why you weren't lynched, which gives me pause.

thellama73 wrote:

S~V~S wrote:Earlier in the day, though, you said something to someone, maybe Canuck? Kinda trying to cajole them into a Bloop vote.

Have any ideas on how she was lynched as opposed to the person with the most votes?

Yes, I know how.

Roxy wrote:I think your other thing is wanting me to out myself or info and explain exactly why I was not lynched. Well do not hold your breath bc I will not be explaining that until end game. So you have made this big expansive deal about me over one vote and bc I won't directly out info to you? LOL ok. I am good with that.

Considering that llama voted ninja bloops who had 2 votes, you voted Made who had 1 vote, and you had three votes, I still find it odd that ninjabloops was the one who was lynched. I also had two votes, so why wasn't I lynched?

I'm not trying to ask you to infodrop, but I want to talk about this (with other people, not necessarily you). This was as peculiar a lynch as any this game, and we shouldn't just sweep it under the rug.



Made
1
Roxy (5) 6%

MetalMarsh
2
Bass_the_Clever (8), S~V~S (11) 13%

Ninjablooper
2
thellama73 (9), Canucklehead (14) 13%

Roxy
3
Metalmarsh89 (6), Black Rock (15), Turnip Head (16) 19%

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

S~V~S wrote:

Black Rock wrote:Fing hell. I give up, I throw my hands into the air.

This is ridiculous. Shouldn't we have lynched a baddie by accident by now?

For TH - *hangs myself*

This.

And for future reference MM, you will get better results from me (and people in general) if you refrain from talking to me like you're my Dad. He can say to me, "Explain yourself". You, not so much. In each circumstance, the other person had more lynch support, so I did not want to split anything. That post was the last I read, after reading it I decided to go AFK for a day. Considered asking for a replacement for being such a fail, but since I am not the only one

I am not angry with you. I am just generally frustrated with this game. I feel like I'm being played the fool, since people keep waffling back and forth on me, and as a result, not giving my reads a fair shake. You just happened to be the only player responding to me directly.

It doesn't change my mind about you though, but I feel like I'm at least giving your thoughts a chance, sometimes.

Maybe we need to talk post game; I did not think you were angry, I thought you were rude. Sometimes I think the two of us think we are speaking English to each other, but we are actually speaking some other mystery language that only SOUNDS like English. You ken? {/ot}

And I am frustrated as well, believe me, for more reasons than you could know.

Also, sorry you died, BWT. After your last case got a civ lynched, I would have thought they would have kept you around

That's just cruel. RIP BWT.

I had actually opened up a post to write at around 12:30am, got distracted by another game, and it's now almost 3am. I'll just say this and leave the game thoughts for tomorrow:

SVS, I very much hope you don't ask to be replaced, though, despite the frustrations.

And I also welcome Roxy's comeback with such an analysis. I agree we need to refocus heavily.

RIP BWT

S~V~S wrote:Maybe we need to talk post game; I did not think you were angry, I thought you were rude. Sometimes I think the two of us think we are speaking English to each other, but we are actually speaking some other mystery language that only SOUNDS like English. You ken? {/ot}

Let's do it.

If someone would like to outline the game since i left from their own perspectives while i try to determine a persona/paradigm, that'd be awesome!

Made wrote:If someone would like to outline the game since i left from their own perspectives while i try to determine a persona/paradigm, that'd be awesome!

lol at the paradigm comment.

Since your mess of a lynch on Day 5, there was some speculation about the thread-locking. llama called LC out that night, and was NK'd as well. BWT came in on Day 6 with a hefty case on TH. TH accused him of info-dropping by proxy (because of BWT's role), and countered the case well, but the case was decent enough, and BWT is a perma-civ, so the lynch swang that way, flipping a civvy TH. We all feel like shit right now (except the baddies who are probably laughing). Nothing really happened worth noting last night, but you were around for that anyway.

But of course, I don't remember every little thing that happened, so take what I say with a grain of salt.

BR is off the poll for today, I noticed.

linki: Pretty much what MM said. I'd just add BWT built his case on TH's voting record, to which people either subscribed (i.e. trusted BWT enough to vote for TH), either TH's later reactions made people even more wary and a couple of people brought back their game-long suspicions on him and influenced the debate as well.

Not surprising to see a Confirmed Civvie killed, that's just smart baddie behaviour. See you next time, BWT!

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Roxy, you and llama both stated that you know why you weren't lynched, which gives me pause.

thellama73 wrote:

S~V~S wrote:Earlier in the day, though, you said something to someone, maybe Canuck? Kinda trying to cajole them into a Bloop vote.

Have any ideas on how she was lynched as opposed to the person with the most votes?

Yes, I know how.

Roxy wrote:I think your other thing is wanting me to out myself or info and explain exactly why I was not lynched. Well do not hold your breath bc I will not be explaining that until end game. So you have made this big expansive deal about me over one vote and bc I won't directly out info to you? LOL ok. I am good with that.

Considering that llama voted ninja bloops who had 2 votes, you voted Made who had 1 vote, and you had three votes, I still find it odd that ninjabloops was the one who was lynched. I also had two votes, so why wasn't I lynched?

I'm not trying to ask you to infodrop, but I want to talk about this (with other people, not necessarily you). This was as peculiar a lynch as any this game, and we shouldn't just sweep it under the rug.



Made
1
Roxy (5) 6%

MetalMarsh
2
Bass_the_Clever (8), S~V~S (11) 13%

Ninjablooper
2
thellama73 (9), Canucklehead (14) 13%

Roxy
3
Metalmarsh89 (6), Black Rock (15), Turnip Head (16) 19%

I see a way for this to happen without Roxy being bad.

Made wrote:If someone would like to outline the game since i left from their own perspectives while i try to determine a persona/paradigm, that'd be awesome!

you've been gone for 1 game day...

My theory for the Roxy survival is best left unsaid, and I think that's probably in line with the reason Roxy and Llama are staying silent.

Ricochet wrote:BR is off the poll for today, I noticed.

linki: Pretty much what MM said. I'd just add BWT built his case on TH's voting record, to which people either subscribed (i.e. trusted BWT enough to vote for TH), either TH's later reactions made people even more wary and a couple of people brought back their game-long suspicions on him and influenced the debate as well.

I noticed that too.

Whatever.

^That was directed @ LC.

What do you guys want to talk about today then?

Metalmarsh89 wrote:^That was directed @ LC.

What do you guys want to talk about today then?

Glad you clarified that. When I saw the first post I was all like "Rude!"

It was rude anyway. Sorry I've been a shitshow this game.

Long Con wrote:My theory for the Roxy survival is best left unsaid, and I think that's probably in line with the reason Roxy and Llama are staying silent.

Actually, I think llama is staying silent because llama is dead.

Made wrote:If someone would like to outline the game since i left from their own perspectives while i try to determine a persona/paradigm, that'd be awesome!

you've been gone for 1 game day...[/quote]
Yeah, but I have to come in with a fresh start, I'm a new player!

Reading TH's lynch, I'd probably would of voted him myself, he's seemed stiff in how he was posting, which would of been enough for me if i didn't have other suspicions at the time of voting.

Here's the angle I'm taking at the moment: killing Llama just seems like a strange idea. He's really good at being wrong, confident, and an asset to any team he's not on.

Jokes aside, I think it's far more likely that a person would kill Llama because he's wrong. Llama's death points directly to LC, which seems like a set up to me. A player who would feel comfortable doing this would be someone that Llama didn't have a strongly stated opinion about.

thellama73 wrote:

Made 1.0 wrote:If this helps anyone: I think it's worth point out the interesting trust dynamic that seems to be going on.

MM, Myself, Rico, Llama(?), DF

vs

Roxy, SVS, TH, Dom, LC

BR, Canuck, BWT are neither positive or negative to either of the trust groups.

I'm not saying this to create an overarching argument about the roles or possible association between the two groups, since this is very much simplified (notably when you look at Llama and LC). That said I think BR, Canuck, and BWT are an interesting group in the fact that they seem to be escaping the aforementioned feud.

What the heck? This is completely inaccurate with respect to me. If I had to group those players into Trust v. Don't Trust, it would look like this.

Trust: DF, SVS, Roxy, maybe Made but less so
Don't Trust: Dom, Rico, Maybe MM, maybe BR, Maybe LC

Llama seemed to be the most lukewarm on BR (A llama post later gave MM the all clear). Going to reread her and see if I find anything interesting... In the mean time, Canuck, Reads? who do you plan on looking at today?

MM u2. I need reads bud.

I'll hold off until you make some reads of your own. You're in a different role then before.

Plus you can always look at my post history. I haven't tried to hide who I think is bad.

It is my observation that I am making reads based off of demeanor, which is a mistake. It is a mistake I am prone to, am of which I am aware, yet I make it nevertheless. I did some rereading to try to get new perspective, and still the only thing that leaped out at me was MM.

Metalmarsh is right; why the hell have I been voting for other people when I suspect him?

*Voting Metalmarsh*

So here are my game thoughts at the moment, in reply to Roxy's enquiry (and somewhat Made's as well); they're not too different from what I've stated so far, but I also feel there are a couple of players I should re-read almost entirely in order to form a better judgement.

AP and Made are starting over. I was not keen at any point to make assumptions about Sabie's and Lizzy's alignments, given how inactive they were, but I also wasn't very inclined to believe they could be inactive baddies (or that their teammates would be ok with them being that). But again, with Sabie completely inactive and Lizzy having been just pissed at Llama for jumping on Vomps on D1, there's almost no preliminary info to work with.

Making my way up from inactives to actives, I think the shorter the players' list is getting without any success in tracking baddies, the more we have to reconsider the issue of at least a couple of them lying low. I'm spotting serious activity from Spacedaisy elsewhere, which makes me curious about why she doesn't feel engaged at all here. So either a bored civ or someone who could actively want to go undetected (with her teammates approving of that, if so) - no important gameplay to analyse, no connections to be made. But at this point I can't seriously make a judgement on this. I'm seeing a better DF these days, after his catching-up contributions, during the first days, were very lukewarm. One player I should re-read is Bass, to see if I missed anything besides his relentless case on MM.

I would seriously have BR high up my suspects list, for reasons I have stated, but she received amnesty today, so there's nothing I can pursue right now. I don't fully know how to interpret what her protector would like to signal with this. A couple of other players I should re-read are Dom and LC, given how little interactions I had with them (and often not great ones, strictly in terms of discussion level). Of the two, I'm more wary of Dom: off the radar since MP debacle, shallow voting since (Vomps, TH), jumping on Llama without making it clear if that's his true intent or just mocking him, simply not the most trustworthy gameplay for me. LC's intent with Llama was more serious, after which Llama also had serious intent to vote for LC and then Llama got killed. But I tend to also think, much like Made, that it's a set up, just like FZ.'s kill proved to be for the lynching Vomps.

If there's one part of TH's lynch that I would build from, it would be regarding Canuck's and BR's retroactives votes (or jumps) on him: suspicions stemming from D1, yet inconsistent throughout the game (on-off, as they've put it themselves) and then a convenient jump back on him on D6; granted, both feel great remorse in having done so (BR also chose to vote for MM, instead), nevertheless they have undeniably influenced the vote on him and it could potentially signal tactic more than error. But again, BR is off the hook today and I have no other read on Canuck besides this.

My read on Roxy's stops around after the Vomps lynch, which absolved her of many suspicions in the eyes of many including me. This is why I was wary of those who almost lynched her the following day, on retroactive suspicions (her behaviour in her exchange with Llama and such) - out of which TH is now dead civ, BR swiftly changed her mind without much reasoning and MM seems still intent on Roxy being bad. As for myself, at this point, I think Roxy is more trustworthy than not. Also, call me completely hypnotized, in case SVS will ever flip or be revealed as bad, but I'm seeing her playing as a civ.

That does leave MM as a strong candidate, with his consistently active and provoking game that could have implications both ways. I'll re-read to see how strongly would I feel voting for him, but my current feelings are these: I voted with uncertainty for Made and he turned out a civ; I refused to vote for TH because of my uncertainty and he turned out a civ; I could vote for MM with less uncertainty about how he could flip than I had with the other two combined.

Oh boy, almost 4pm here and I have done almost nothing today. Thanks Mafia!

Today I'm likely voting for Bass, DF, SD, or (outside chance) Dom. Bass, DF, and SD for being extreme low-liers, Dom 'cuz a have a gut feeling (but those have sucked this game, so I'm not too inclined to follow that again).

Still don't understand why MM is on everyone's lists. I've re-read him already, but I guess I'll give a re-read to his main suspector/accuser SVS and see if I can figure out why you all feel so unsure of him.

Canucklehead wrote:

Long Con wrote:My theory for the Roxy survival is best left unsaid, and I think that's probably in line with the reason Roxy and Llama are staying silent.

Actually, I think llama is staying silent because llama is dead.

rezz plz

Canucklehead wrote:Today I'm likely voting for Bass, DF, SD, or (outside chance) Dom. Bass, DF, and SD for being extreme low-liers, Dom 'cuz a have a gut feeling (but those have sucked this game, so I'm not too inclined to follow that again).

Still don't understand why MM is on everyone's lists. I've re-read him already, but I guess I'll give a re-read to his main suspector/accuser SVS and see if I can figure out why you all feel so unsure of him.

I wouldn't say I'm an extremely low lier these days. It just takes me a while to warm up in most games.

Anyway, since we have had no success yet, today I'm going to work off of a theory. Uwe Boll apparently locked the thread when there were 3 votes, so presumably none of those players are Hacks. My belief is that he probably locked the thread because he or one of his teammates had been under suspicion, and he didn't want them to take votes. I'm going to go back and see who was being discussed during the day and night prior to the thread lock.

S~V~S wrote:I think lynching either of them is good. I got a teammates feel from them, even when they were being adversarial, they were being sympatico. Like I said yesterday, it felt to me like MM was giving TH a platform for expressing himself, while doing a bit of distancing at the same time. Then TH made a remark about how MM is determined to misread him, and that was not how I was reading their exchange at all. That was why I put out the "popcorn" smilie; they were putting on an excellent show, and i was enjoying watching them.

I would say I was sorry it annoyed MM, but, really, I kinda wasn't. This is how I play, and it works for me

Linki~ Welcome Back AP

SVS, in light of TH flipping civ, how have you re-organized your thoughts about MM? If he's not TH's baddie teammate (which seemed to be at least part of the fuel for your TH vote), what else about him makes you think he's bad? (I am in the process of reading back through all your posts to try to find your original suspicions of MM that are not TH connected, but I'm not quite done yet.....and regardless, I'd like to hear how/if your thoughts have changed given the new information about TH, or if the TH-teamie thing was not actually much of a factor for you).

Thanks!

I cast my vote for DFaraday, who now has tried to introduce thread actions resulting from baddie moves (the Llama kill, the Uwe Boll thing)... I think he's a baddie who wants certain results from those actions.

Canuck, I was attaching my suspish of MM to everyone he interacted with to any extent. So my suspicion of him wasn't dependant on TH, but the other way around.

Long Con wrote:I cast my vote for DFaraday, who now has tried to introduce thread actions resulting from baddie moves (the Llama kill, the Uwe Boll thing)... I think he's a baddie who wants certain results from those actions.

I like this. A lot.

S~V~S wrote:Canuck, I was attaching my suspish of MM to everyone he interacted with to any extent. So my suspicion of him wasn't dependant on TH, but the other way around.

Thanks, SVS. Makes sense.

Long Con wrote:I cast my vote for DFaraday, who now has tried to introduce thread actions resulting from baddie moves (the Llama kill, the Uwe Boll thing)... I think he's a baddie who wants certain results from those actions.

And where does that put you?

Long Con wrote:I cast my vote for DFaraday, who now has tried to introduce thread actions resulting from baddie moves (the Llama kill, the Uwe Boll thing)... I think he's a baddie who wants certain results from those actions.

How would you rather I play? Just vote people based on intuition?

Dom wrote:

Long Con wrote:I cast my vote for DFaraday, who now has tried to introduce thread actions resulting from baddie moves (the Llama kill, the Uwe Boll thing)... I think he's a baddie who wants certain results from those actions.

And where does that put you?

Where does it "put" me? I don't understand the question.

DFaraday wrote:

Long Con wrote:I cast my vote for DFaraday, who now has tried to introduce thread actions resulting from baddie moves (the Llama kill, the Uwe Boll thing)... I think he's a baddie who wants certain results from those actions.

How would you rather I play? Just vote people based on intuition?

I'm only concerned with deciding how I play... how you play is none of my business, really. This is MY suspicion, and it could be wrong or right. You could even be a baddie on the team that had nothing to do with either of those things, and I get lucky by lynching you. Or you could be a Civvie, and I'm wrong again, and the baddies benefit. I don't know, I just have to go with my suspicions.

Also, I don't want to derail a Metalmarsh lynch, I just have lost faith and steam on that trajectory. I still think he's bad, but it's just like I thought Made was bad.

Long Con wrote:

Dom wrote:

Long Con wrote:I cast my vote for DFaraday, who now has tried to introduce thread actions resulting from baddie moves (the Llama kill, the Uwe Boll thing)... I think he's a baddie who wants certain results from those actions.

And where does that put you?

Where does it "put" me? I don't understand the question.

Precisely!

Dom wrote:

Long Con wrote:

Dom wrote:

Long Con wrote:I cast my vote for DFaraday, who now has tried to introduce thread actions resulting from baddie moves (the Llama kill, the Uwe Boll thing)... I think he's a baddie who wants certain results from those actions.

And where does that put you?

Where does it "put" me? I don't understand the question.

Precisely!

Well in that case, let's just say I have me RIGHT where I want me.

I think people should reread SVS. I won't try to influence your read on her, but not a single player has gone back and taken a look at her.

@LC, I think you're bad, but I could go for a DF lynch today.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:I think people should reread SVS. I won't try to influence your read on her, but not a single player has gone back and taken a look at her.

@LC, I think you're bad, but I could go for a DF lynch today.

Do you think DF is bad, too?

Anyone who is hesitant to trust an automatic civ is bad news. After all,

Mongoose wrote:This will be a traditional-format game, but with an inappropriate amount of fun.

There is no reason to think that BWT could be bad. I've seen baddies do this before; speculating over questionable roles/players to try to shed a baddie shadow over them.

Dom who are you thinking about voting?

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Anyone who is hesitant to trust an automatic civ is bad news. After all,

Mongoose wrote:This will be a traditional-format game, but with an inappropriate amount of fun.

There is no reason to think that BWT could be bad. I've seen baddies do this before; speculating over questionable roles/players to try to shed a baddie shadow over them.

I disagree. Trying to shine a bad shadow on BWT (without following through on a vote of course) might of kept him alive longer. That what I would of done if I were alive when BWT started the TH lynch.
Also, apparently I fell asleep playing mafia last night. posting what I had written now.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:I'll hold off until you make some reads of your own. You're in a different role then before.

Plus you can always look at my post history. I haven't tried to hide who I think is bad.

This post from you in particular pings me.
Anyways, My shortlist right now is
1. MM
2. BR
3. Canuck

The post below is the reason MM is number one on my list.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Roxy, you and llama both stated that you know why you weren't lynched, which gives me pause.

thellama73 wrote:

S~V~S wrote:Earlier in the day, though, you said something to someone, maybe Canuck? Kinda trying to cajole them into a Bloop vote.

Have any ideas on how she was lynched as opposed to the person with the most votes?

Yes, I know how.

Roxy wrote:I think your other thing is wanting me to out myself or info and explain exactly why I was not lynched. Well do not hold your breath bc I will not be explaining that until end game. So you have made this big expansive deal about me over one vote and bc I won't directly out info to you? LOL ok. I am good with that.

Considering that llama voted ninja bloops who had 2 votes, you voted Made who had 1 vote, and you had three votes, I still find it odd that ninjabloops was the one who was lynched. I also had two votes, so why wasn't I lynched?

I'm not trying to ask you to infodrop, but I want to talk about this (with other people, not necessarily you). This was as peculiar a lynch as any this game, and we shouldn't just sweep it under the rug.



Made
1
Roxy (5) 6%

MetalMarsh
2
Bass_the_Clever (8), S~V~S (11) 13%

Ninjablooper
2
thellama73 (9), Canucklehead (14) 13%

Roxy
3
Metalmarsh89 (6), Black Rock (15), Turnip Head (16) 19%

On the surface, I get wanting to have as much information available regardless of allignment, but this post and

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:I was clearly just speculating.

I looked at both baddie teams, and the Brotherhood has two similarly unclear roles.

Mongoose wrote:Duplass Bros. Mumblecore creators. Inspired by Cassavetes, their super-realism shows the nuances of every day life.

Wachowskis. Siblings known for their multi-part storytelling.

Why didn't you speculate on those? Are you a member of the brotherhood?

Just feel like stretch to me.

Also, I didn't reread you in your entirety, but you haven't reevaluated thread opinions or reads since TH died. You said you thought LC was bad but any reasoning to back that up?

Bass_the_Clever wrote:Dom who are you thinking about voting?

MetalMarsh, and you?

Made wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Anyone who is hesitant to trust an automatic civ is bad news. After all,

Mongoose wrote:This will be a traditional-format game, but with an inappropriate amount of fun.

There is no reason to think that BWT could be bad. I've seen baddies do this before; speculating over questionable roles/players to try to shed a baddie shadow over them.

I disagree. Trying to shine a bad shadow on BWT (without following through on a vote of course) might of kept him alive longer. That what I would of done if I were alive when BWT started the TH lynch.
Also, apparently I fell asleep playing mafia last night. posting what I had written now.

I don't see a good reason to throw suspicion over a player who is a confirmed civ. While your point about decreasing his chances of being NK'd might be true, there are too many other factors to counter that. It distracts from proper baddy-hunting by suspecting someone who is civ. While he might not be NK'd another civ might be NK'd in his place. Just lose-lose situation, unless you're a baddie.

Linki: and I don't understand why me not telling you my reads pings you. I don't know who you are, and I have no reason to 'give' you something to latch onto. I'd rather wait and read your behavior, and be cautionary.

In regards to LC: his behavior has been aloof all game, and now he doesn't want to take responsibility for his votes. Llama was killed the same night he called LC out.

@Made, I noticed that you immediately defend DF upon your return, and your top 3 suspects line up with this recent post from Ricochet here. What do you think of DF and Ricochet?

Why am I on your suspect list, Made?

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Made wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Anyone who is hesitant to trust an automatic civ is bad news. After all,

Mongoose wrote:This will be a traditional-format game, but with an inappropriate amount of fun.

There is no reason to think that BWT could be bad. I've seen baddies do this before; speculating over questionable roles/players to try to shed a baddie shadow over them.

I disagree. Trying to shine a bad shadow on BWT (without following through on a vote of course) might of kept him alive longer. That what I would of done if I were alive when BWT started the TH lynch.
Also, apparently I fell asleep playing mafia last night. posting what I had written now.

I don't see a good reason to throw suspicion over a player who is a confirmed civ. While your point about decreasing his chances of being NK'd might be true, there are too many other factors to counter that. It distracts from proper baddy-hunting by suspecting someone who is civ. While he might not be NK'd another civ might be NK'd in his place. Just lose-lose situation, unless you're a baddie.

We're getting into game philosophy, but assuming you don't vote BWT, it's a lose maybe win. Maybe baddies kill someone you didn't trust at all, thus allowing you to refocus. A a maybe civvie dying is better than a confirmed civvie dying.

Linki: and I don't understand why me not telling you my reads pings you. I don't know who you are, and I have no reason to 'give' you something to latch onto. I'd rather wait and read your behavior, and be cautionary.

That's not why I suspect you, the above two post pinged me and i'm curious if the ping might lead to something more substantial, so i'm asking for your reads to
1. find more people to look at
2. see if any interesting conclusion can be drawn based on who you distrust.

And leading back into my questions: why do you distrust LCLinki: Thanks for answering this, I'll come back to it..., who else do you distrust?

And re Canuck: List of 3 are nice and stuff. Where do you plan on going today?

As for DF and Rico, no reads, but i'll go back and read them and address this on my next post