The Syndicate

S~V~S wrote:I think he corrected someone for spelling his name wrong.

Thanks for the reminder. Found the post I was looking for!

yo sprit who felt weird about me you weird motherfucker

There's got to be a couple of grizzled mafia vets left after the lurkpurge. Surely Epi has teamed the kids up with vets.

I say we lynch DharmaHelper.

Down with Dharma!

Turnip Head wrote:yo sprit who felt weird about me you weird motherfucker

Yikes! TH I don't think the undrunk you meant to call anyone a motherfucker.

MacDougall wrote:There's got to be a couple of grizzled mafia vets left after the lurkpurge. Surely Epi has teamed the kids up with vets.

I say we lynch DharmaHelper.

Yeah uhm not going to happen bud.

DH, who do you wanna lynch today?

Mac, why DH?

Dom wrote:DH, who do you wanna lynch today?

I don't particularly like Glorfindel's interactions with you today. I'll look that over more thoroughly for sure. I still have an eye for SVS but I'd have to circle the wagons on that front.

Theres also like 5 more players who have been MIA as fuck which is kind of lame but I'd rather vote for a suspicious person rather than an absent one at this point. I think that well might be dried up.

So you agree with Mac on that front?

Dom wrote:So you agree with Mac on that front?

Do I agree that the time for lynching nonparticipating players is over? Yeah. I mean like Mac said I don't see Epi or LC putting players not likely to participate into that many mafia roles.


If they did, holy shit.

OK, thanks for the consideration of allowing me to address my technical issues. I'm afraid Dom that I could not reply to you earlier. My keyboard gave up the ghost and would only work intermittently and it took ages to type anything. I was at work on a break when I sent that last message and as much as I'd have wanted to reply to you, it simply wasn't going to happen - I appreciate your patience.

Basically, I agree with what's been said already - the well of newer players being Mafia has dried up. On the law of averages, you'd have to assume that there are one or two more experienced players involved as part of the Mafia families.

On that note, some time ago I was playing a Mafia game where (as Town) I'd concocted this theory on the guilt of one of my fellow players based on their use of certain punctuation in their posts. I was absolutely convinced of their guilt and put my case to the rest of the players in that game. Needless to say I got laughed out of town and rightly so, I was completely wrong. Now please don't misunderstand me here - I fully respect the ability of each and everyone of you, my fellow players and in particular S-V-S. I know we had that run-in early on over my post that you thought was too carefully worded. I think that case was pretty thin (more so than the one I described above) and what's more, it was wrong.

I found your argument with Golden interesting and for better or worse, I think his judgement is pretty good from all accounts (after all, you don't win all those Socky's for nothing). And then, in the dying shadows of dawn, you started accusing me again. You said that you would vote for me because I am not direct in answering questions - and that may be true. I do the best I can to contribute fully and respect each and everyone of you in the face (sometimes) of some considerable provocation. You would do well not to misjudge me for that.

In terms of my vote right now, I think it will be S-V-S. I have an open mind and if someone comes up with a better case before tomorrow morning, I'll happily consider it.

DharmaHelper wrote:Fuck that Ghostbusters trailer, btw. Fuck it so hard

I am like 60% sure that DharmaHelper is bad.

Golden wrote:

My friend, at whatever point I am to leave this game (be it this Day phase or some other) it will be you whom I shall miss most. I'm guessing what you're doing with these gifs is some kind of curse but every single one has brought a smile to my face

People have drawn comparisons between my posts this game and Star Wars where I was Mafia. It's a little hard for me to discern the extent to which that is true but I know for a fact that they are different in one crucial respect and that was the basis for me making that 'obvious Town' comment.

MacDougall wrote:I am like 60% sure that DharmaHelper is bad.

Glorfindel wrote:OK, thanks for the consideration of allowing me to address my technical issues. I'm afraid Dom that I could not reply to you earlier. My keyboard gave up the ghost and would only work intermittently and it took ages to type anything. I was at work on a break when I sent that last message and as much as I'd have wanted to reply to you, it simply wasn't going to happen - I appreciate your patience.

Basically, I agree with what's been said already - the well of newer players being Mafia has dried up. On the law of averages, you'd have to assume that there are one or two more experienced players involved as part of the Mafia families.

On that note, some time ago I was playing a Mafia game where (as Town) I'd concocted this theory on the guilt of one of my fellow players based on their use of certain punctuation in their posts. I was absolutely convinced of their guilt and put my case to the rest of the players in that game. Needless to say I got laughed out of town and rightly so, I was completely wrong. Now please don't misunderstand me here - I fully respect the ability of each and everyone of you, my fellow players and in particular S-V-S. I know we had that run-in early on over my post that you thought was too carefully worded. I think that case was pretty thin (more so than the one I described above) and what's more, it was wrong.

I found your argument with Golden interesting and for better or worse, I think his judgement is pretty good from all accounts (after all, you don't win all those Socky's for nothing). And then, in the dying shadows of dawn, you started accusing me again. You said that you would vote for me because I am not direct in answering questions - and that may be true. I do the best I can to contribute fully and respect each and everyone of you in the face (sometimes) of some considerable provocation. You would do well not to misjudge me for that.

In terms of my vote right now, I think it will be S-V-S. I have an open mind and if someone comes up with a better case before tomorrow morning, I'll happily consider it.

Side stepping my question for four paragraphs and then spending two sentences answering my question is one way to make me think you don't really want to answer my question.

Dom wrote:

Glorfindel wrote:OK, thanks for the consideration of allowing me to address my technical issues. I'm afraid Dom that I could not reply to you earlier. My keyboard gave up the ghost and would only work intermittently and it took ages to type anything. I was at work on a break when I sent that last message and as much as I'd have wanted to reply to you, it simply wasn't going to happen - I appreciate your patience.

Basically, I agree with what's been said already - the well of newer players being Mafia has dried up. On the law of averages, you'd have to assume that there are one or two more experienced players involved as part of the Mafia families.

On that note, some time ago I was playing a Mafia game where (as Town) I'd concocted this theory on the guilt of one of my fellow players based on their use of certain punctuation in their posts. I was absolutely convinced of their guilt and put my case to the rest of the players in that game. Needless to say I got laughed out of town and rightly so, I was completely wrong. Now please don't misunderstand me here - I fully respect the ability of each and everyone of you, my fellow players and in particular S-V-S. I know we had that run-in early on over my post that you thought was too carefully worded. I think that case was pretty thin (more so than the one I described above) and what's more, it was wrong.

I found your argument with Golden interesting and for better or worse, I think his judgement is pretty good from all accounts (after all, you don't win all those Socky's for nothing). And then, in the dying shadows of dawn, you started accusing me again. You said that you would vote for me because I am not direct in answering questions - and that may be true. I do the best I can to contribute fully and respect each and everyone of you in the face (sometimes) of some considerable provocation. You would do well not to misjudge me for that.

In terms of my vote right now, I think it will be S-V-S. I have an open mind and if someone comes up with a better case before tomorrow morning, I'll happily consider it.

Side stepping my question for four paragraphs and then spending two sentences answering my question is one way to make me think you don't really want to answer my question.

I've side-stepped nothing my friend. You asked me to nominate for whom I will vote and I've answered your question. I've tried to give you (and others) insight to my thinking on this matter (with plenty of notice prior to the EoD for your consideration). It is apparent to me that your mind is made up about me Dom and I promise you that you're wrong. I doubt there is anything I can say to change your mind but I trust my fellow Town colleagues will not fall so blindly for the poor excuse of a case against me as you have.

Nah you know what I ain't about to punk Dharma like that. I've got nothing on him except deduction and gut. He's aight.

Glorfindel wrote:OK, thanks for the consideration of allowing me to address my technical issues. I'm afraid Dom that I could not reply to you earlier. My keyboard gave up the ghost and would only work intermittently and it took ages to type anything. I was at work on a break when I sent that last message and as much as I'd have wanted to reply to you, it simply wasn't going to happen - I appreciate your patience.

Basically, I agree with what's been said already - the well of newer players being Mafia has dried up. On the law of averages, you'd have to assume that there are one or two more experienced players involved as part of the Mafia families.

On that note, some time ago I was playing a Mafia game where (as Town) I'd concocted this theory on the guilt of one of my fellow players based on their use of certain punctuation in their posts. I was absolutely convinced of their guilt and put my case to the rest of the players in that game. Needless to say I got laughed out of town and rightly so, I was completely wrong. Now please don't misunderstand me here - I fully respect the ability of each and everyone of you, my fellow players and in particular S-V-S. I know we had that run-in early on over my post that you thought was too carefully worded. I think that case was pretty thin (more so than the one I described above) and what's more, it was wrong.

I found your argument with Golden interesting and for better or worse, I think his judgement is pretty good from all accounts (after all, you don't win all those Socky's for nothing). And then, in the dying shadows of dawn, you started accusing me again. You said that you would vote for me because I am not direct in answering questions - and that may be true. I do the best I can to contribute fully and respect each and everyone of you in the face (sometimes) of some considerable provocation. You would do well not to misjudge me for that.

In terms of my vote right now, I think it will be S-V-S. I have an open mind and if someone comes up with a better case before tomorrow morning, I'll happily consider it.

Um hm. Golden has been defending you most of the game on a more or less overt level.

Can you tell me why you are going to vote for me without quoting his case? Or paraphrasing it?

Glorfindel wrote:

Dom wrote:

Glorfindel wrote:OK, thanks for the consideration of allowing me to address my technical issues. I'm afraid Dom that I could not reply to you earlier. My keyboard gave up the ghost and would only work intermittently and it took ages to type anything. I was at work on a break when I sent that last message and as much as I'd have wanted to reply to you, it simply wasn't going to happen - I appreciate your patience.

Basically, I agree with what's been said already - the well of newer players being Mafia has dried up. On the law of averages, you'd have to assume that there are one or two more experienced players involved as part of the Mafia families.

On that note, some time ago I was playing a Mafia game where (as Town) I'd concocted this theory on the guilt of one of my fellow players based on their use of certain punctuation in their posts. I was absolutely convinced of their guilt and put my case to the rest of the players in that game. Needless to say I got laughed out of town and rightly so, I was completely wrong. Now please don't misunderstand me here - I fully respect the ability of each and everyone of you, my fellow players and in particular S-V-S. I know we had that run-in early on over my post that you thought was too carefully worded. I think that case was pretty thin (more so than the one I described above) and what's more, it was wrong.

I found your argument with Golden interesting and for better or worse, I think his judgement is pretty good from all accounts (after all, you don't win all those Socky's for nothing). And then, in the dying shadows of dawn, you started accusing me again. You said that you would vote for me because I am not direct in answering questions - and that may be true. I do the best I can to contribute fully and respect each and everyone of you in the face (sometimes) of some considerable provocation. You would do well not to misjudge me for that.

In terms of my vote right now, I think it will be S-V-S. I have an open mind and if someone comes up with a better case before tomorrow morning, I'll happily consider it.

Side stepping my question for four paragraphs and then spending two sentences answering my question is one way to make me think you don't really want to answer my question.

I've side-stepped nothing my friend. You asked me to nominate for whom I will vote and I've answered your question. I've tried to give you (and others) insight to my thinking on this matter (with plenty of notice prior to the EoD for your consideration). It is apparent to me that your mind is made up about me Dom and I promise you that you're wrong. I doubt there is anything I can say to change your mind but I trust my fellow Town colleagues will not fall so blindly for the poor excuse of a case against me as you have.

My mind is far from made up. You spent four paragraphs avoiding my question and then answered it in two. You also switched between addressing myself and SVS throughout the post, thus making it even less substantial of a response. You just say you will vote SVS, but don't give a reason. I've gone back and found very little on your suspicions, especially since you've started taking heat. You have struggled to come up with lynch candidates as alternatives to yourself. There was a significant delay in your answer to my question and the answer didn't really give a full response.
So, no, don't turn this around on me and say I've made up my mind. You made up my mind.

Dom wrote:

Glorfindel wrote:

Dom wrote:

Glorfindel wrote:OK, thanks for the consideration of allowing me to address my technical issues. I'm afraid Dom that I could not reply to you earlier. My keyboard gave up the ghost and would only work intermittently and it took ages to type anything. I was at work on a break when I sent that last message and as much as I'd have wanted to reply to you, it simply wasn't going to happen - I appreciate your patience.

Basically, I agree with what's been said already - the well of newer players being Mafia has dried up. On the law of averages, you'd have to assume that there are one or two more experienced players involved as part of the Mafia families.

On that note, some time ago I was playing a Mafia game where (as Town) I'd concocted this theory on the guilt of one of my fellow players based on their use of certain punctuation in their posts. I was absolutely convinced of their guilt and put my case to the rest of the players in that game. Needless to say I got laughed out of town and rightly so, I was completely wrong. Now please don't misunderstand me here - I fully respect the ability of each and everyone of you, my fellow players and in particular S-V-S. I know we had that run-in early on over my post that you thought was too carefully worded. I think that case was pretty thin (more so than the one I described above) and what's more, it was wrong.

I found your argument with Golden interesting and for better or worse, I think his judgement is pretty good from all accounts (after all, you don't win all those Socky's for nothing). And then, in the dying shadows of dawn, you started accusing me again. You said that you would vote for me because I am not direct in answering questions - and that may be true. I do the best I can to contribute fully and respect each and everyone of you in the face (sometimes) of some considerable provocation. You would do well not to misjudge me for that.

In terms of my vote right now, I think it will be S-V-S. I have an open mind and if someone comes up with a better case before tomorrow morning, I'll happily consider it.

Side stepping my question for four paragraphs and then spending two sentences answering my question is one way to make me think you don't really want to answer my question.

I've side-stepped nothing my friend. You asked me to nominate for whom I will vote and I've answered your question. I've tried to give you (and others) insight to my thinking on this matter (with plenty of notice prior to the EoD for your consideration). It is apparent to me that your mind is made up about me Dom and I promise you that you're wrong. I doubt there is anything I can say to change your mind but I trust my fellow Town colleagues will not fall so blindly for the poor excuse of a case against me as you have.

My mind is far from made up. You spent four paragraphs avoiding my question and then answered it in two. You also switched between addressing myself and SVS throughout the post, thus making it even less substantial of a response. You just say you will vote SVS, but don't give a reason. I've gone back and found very little on your suspicions, especially since you've started taking heat. You have struggled to come up with lynch candidates as alternatives to yourself. There was a significant delay in your answer to my question and the answer didn't really give a full response.
So, no, don't turn this around on me and say I've made up my mind. You made up my mind.

You can deny it all you like Dom but your mind was made up. Your most recent post (above) proves that in spades. You've twisted circumstances (such as my availability and legitimate issues I was experiencing) to give credibility to a case that is frankly non-existent. I offerred my G2H reads and I gave them. I've done my best to support my lynch choices with some semblance of arguments but that has not any point been sufficient to quell your suspicions of me. Others have not cooperated with you anywhere near as much as I have and where is your scrutiny of them? As I said earlier, nothing I could say is ever going to convince you. I trust the remainder of the Town can exercise a little logic and objectivity for the vote this Day phase.

Glorfindel wrote: You can deny it all you like Dom but your mind was made up. Your most recent post (above) proves that in spades. You've twisted circumstances (such as my availability and legitimate issues I was experiencing) to give credibility to a case that is frankly non-existent. I offerred my G2H reads and I gave them. I've done my best to support my lynch choices with some semblance of arguments but that has not any point been sufficient to quell your suspicions of me. Others have not cooperated with you anywhere near as much as I have and where is your scrutiny of them? As I said earlier, nothing I could say is ever going to convince you. I trust the remainder of the Town can exercise a little logic and objectivity for the vote this Day phase.

I have a few points about this:
1) You've changed your tune from saying that you are grateful for my consideration and cooperation to saying that I am "twisitng circumstances" You only care that I stop pursuing you, not that I find a baddie.
2) I have other suspicions, so don't erase that. I am very suspicious of sprit who has done nothing to cooperate with me.
3) I have brought up and agree with many points against you that you are not even beginning to mention here:
--"obvious civvie"
--Playing the n00b card saying everyone's out to get you because you're new

Glorf, you have taken a quite hostile tone with me. Why?


I would love to hear from sprit as some point during this day as well.

Golden wrote:

I realize I have been very far from 100 percent, it's pretty much because of turf wars eating up all of my free time. Sorry for that. I'll see when I can get more engaged soon.

Until then, I'm pretty much swamped today with phd work, so I might as well vote. I'm not feeling the SVS suspicion as much these days, but I do find Glorf, sprit, and no show votes attractive. With our luck last time and given they eventually need to be lynched anyway, in addition to the fact that I haven't been able to really hunt at all lately, I'm gonna go with a no show.

Which one... Let's do Equivocate.

MP, why do we need to lynch them all?

Dom wrote:MP, why do we need to lynch them all?

Well, I suppose we wouldn't need to if the remainder of them were all GCPD or something. I'll entertain that that's possible, but they're just as statistically likely to have rolled mafia or inmate as anyone else, and they're giving us no information by which to judge them for it, so if even one of them is left alone and is mafia, then we'll have to lynch them eventually.

Plus, I don't mind hitting an inmate or two.

I know it's a weak vote, but there are still (by my count) 4 inactives remaining: Bass, Bubbles, ekeknat, and Equivocate, and it seems to me the mafia will never NK them (and why should they?). It makes more sense to rid them now, rather than save them for endgame and risk a scenario in which there are 6 players, 1 of which is mafia, 4 of which are inactive, and the other 1 is civilian. Then we lose.

thanks mp

No problem, bud!

If you all disagree with me, that's totally fine with me; I'd be happy with a lynch of someone active too, particularly Glorfindel (he's increasingly seeming like his Star Wars self, and his lack of hunting is not convincing me otherwise) and sprityo (though, like others have speculated, it's very possible he's an inmate who's won). I just thought I'd throw my hat in the ring again this time for another inactive lynch. I may or may not go the same way tomorrow though. Just gotta see when I'll have some time to actually put more than a half-assed effort in the game at this point, since hosting is taking up a bunch of time.

S~V~S wrote:

Glorfindel wrote:OK, thanks for the consideration of allowing me to address my technical issues. I'm afraid Dom that I could not reply to you earlier. My keyboard gave up the ghost and would only work intermittently and it took ages to type anything. I was at work on a break when I sent that last message and as much as I'd have wanted to reply to you, it simply wasn't going to happen - I appreciate your patience.

Basically, I agree with what's been said already - the well of newer players being Mafia has dried up. On the law of averages, you'd have to assume that there are one or two more experienced players involved as part of the Mafia families.

On that note, some time ago I was playing a Mafia game where (as Town) I'd concocted this theory on the guilt of one of my fellow players based on their use of certain punctuation in their posts. I was absolutely convinced of their guilt and put my case to the rest of the players in that game. Needless to say I got laughed out of town and rightly so, I was completely wrong. Now please don't misunderstand me here - I fully respect the ability of each and everyone of you, my fellow players and in particular S-V-S. I know we had that run-in early on over my post that you thought was too carefully worded. I think that case was pretty thin (more so than the one I described above) and what's more, it was wrong.

I found your argument with Golden interesting and for better or worse, I think his judgement is pretty good from all accounts (after all, you don't win all those Socky's for nothing). And then, in the dying shadows of dawn, you started accusing me again. You said that you would vote for me because I am not direct in answering questions - and that may be true. I do the best I can to contribute fully and respect each and everyone of you in the face (sometimes) of some considerable provocation. You would do well not to misjudge me for that.

In terms of my vote right now, I think it will be S-V-S. I have an open mind and if someone comes up with a better case before tomorrow morning, I'll happily consider it.

Um hm. Golden has been defending you most of the game on a more or less overt level.

Can you tell me why you are going to vote for me without quoting his case? Or paraphrasing it?

@GLORFINDEL~

I see you were here long enough to reply to Dom, can you please reply to me?

Thanks

MacDougall wrote:Nah you know what I ain't about to punk Dharma like that. I've got nothing on him except deduction and gut. He's aight.

Deduction and gut are two diametrically opposed things

DharmaHelper wrote:

MacDougall wrote:Nah you know what I ain't about to punk Dharma like that. I've got nothing on him except deduction and gut. He's aight.

Deduction and gut are two diametrically opposed things

S~V~S wrote:

S~V~S wrote:

Glorfindel wrote:OK, thanks for the consideration of allowing me to address my technical issues. I'm afraid Dom that I could not reply to you earlier. My keyboard gave up the ghost and would only work intermittently and it took ages to type anything. I was at work on a break when I sent that last message and as much as I'd have wanted to reply to you, it simply wasn't going to happen - I appreciate your patience.

Basically, I agree with what's been said already - the well of newer players being Mafia has dried up. On the law of averages, you'd have to assume that there are one or two more experienced players involved as part of the Mafia families.

On that note, some time ago I was playing a Mafia game where (as Town) I'd concocted this theory on the guilt of one of my fellow players based on their use of certain punctuation in their posts. I was absolutely convinced of their guilt and put my case to the rest of the players in that game. Needless to say I got laughed out of town and rightly so, I was completely wrong. Now please don't misunderstand me here - I fully respect the ability of each and everyone of you, my fellow players and in particular S-V-S. I know we had that run-in early on over my post that you thought was too carefully worded. I think that case was pretty thin (more so than the one I described above) and what's more, it was wrong.

I found your argument with Golden interesting and for better or worse, I think his judgement is pretty good from all accounts (after all, you don't win all those Socky's for nothing). And then, in the dying shadows of dawn, you started accusing me again. You said that you would vote for me because I am not direct in answering questions - and that may be true. I do the best I can to contribute fully and respect each and everyone of you in the face (sometimes) of some considerable provocation. You would do well not to misjudge me for that.

In terms of my vote right now, I think it will be S-V-S. I have an open mind and if someone comes up with a better case before tomorrow morning, I'll happily consider it.

Um hm. Golden has been defending you most of the game on a more or less overt level.

Can you tell me why you are going to vote for me without quoting his case? Or paraphrasing it?

@GLORFINDEL~

I see you were here long enough to reply to Dom, can you please reply to me?

Thanks

You were oddly silent on the SVS/Sabie speculation. Care to comment?

Hello nubs.
I am okay with a Mac, Glor or Golden vote from the top of my head.

Typhoony wrote:Hello nubs.
I am okay with a Mac, Glor or Golden vote from the top of my head.

Could you please explain in some detail why you would be willing to vote for each of these individuals?

Mac is a nub
Glor seems to be more like his Star Wars game from the very little I've read
Golden is just gut.

DharmaHelper wrote:

S~V~S wrote:

S~V~S wrote:

Glorfindel wrote:OK, thanks for the consideration of allowing me to address my technical issues. I'm afraid Dom that I could not reply to you earlier. My keyboard gave up the ghost and would only work intermittently and it took ages to type anything. I was at work on a break when I sent that last message and as much as I'd have wanted to reply to you, it simply wasn't going to happen - I appreciate your patience.

Basically, I agree with what's been said already - the well of newer players being Mafia has dried up. On the law of averages, you'd have to assume that there are one or two more experienced players involved as part of the Mafia families.

On that note, some time ago I was playing a Mafia game where (as Town) I'd concocted this theory on the guilt of one of my fellow players based on their use of certain punctuation in their posts. I was absolutely convinced of their guilt and put my case to the rest of the players in that game. Needless to say I got laughed out of town and rightly so, I was completely wrong. Now please don't misunderstand me here - I fully respect the ability of each and everyone of you, my fellow players and in particular S-V-S. I know we had that run-in early on over my post that you thought was too carefully worded. I think that case was pretty thin (more so than the one I described above) and what's more, it was wrong.

I found your argument with Golden interesting and for better or worse, I think his judgement is pretty good from all accounts (after all, you don't win all those Socky's for nothing). And then, in the dying shadows of dawn, you started accusing me again. You said that you would vote for me because I am not direct in answering questions - and that may be true. I do the best I can to contribute fully and respect each and everyone of you in the face (sometimes) of some considerable provocation. You would do well not to misjudge me for that.

In terms of my vote right now, I think it will be S-V-S. I have an open mind and if someone comes up with a better case before tomorrow morning, I'll happily consider it.

Um hm. Golden has been defending you most of the game on a more or less overt level.

Can you tell me why you are going to vote for me without quoting his case? Or paraphrasing it?

@GLORFINDEL~

I see you were here long enough to reply to Dom, can you please reply to me?

Thanks

You were oddly silent on the SVS/Sabie speculation. Care to comment?

It was wrong. I said so. Not much else to say about that. I was not Sabies teammate, I had no idea of Sabies role, and no more read on her than on Equivocate or Ekeknat. The only think I can recall her saying is that she had run out of her meds. I found speculation that she was my teammate, and that I was trying to save her, to be bizarre when I have literally received a Mafia Award for throwing teammates under the bus. I found the case to be speculative at best, and overblown at worst.

What should I have said about it?

If you are trying to imply that the lack of a solid defense, in your opinion, is the same as asking someone to explain why they are planning on voting for someone, it is not.

I meant moreso my points not Goldens.

MovingPictures07 wrote:Plus, I don't mind hitting an inmate or two.

Matt I ink at you should make one of each, and bo mustard and mayo, en report back.