Rufus Posted July 18, 2012 Posted July 18, 2012 It seems Samantha York doesn't have the stomach for this situation. I've been thinking about that whole business of York defending Burbank. Let's think aloud for a moment. I accuse Burbank based on a theory. York doesn't want to waste a lynch, and suggests we should investigate Burbank instead (despite there being no-one tabled as a more appropriate lynch at the time). This is a classic scum ploy: keep the scum alive for another night. And it raises the possibility of Burbank being the scum godfather, possibly showing up town in investigation. On the other hand, perhaps they've been talking in private and York is somehow convinced of Burbank's innocence. But then why not just say that? Next, Wilder is accused. York reveals a conversation between them which (in my eyes) actually makes Wilder look more town. But, York uses the accusation to imply again that Burbank must be town. This stood out as being a logical fallacy given that we don't yet know Wilder's allegiance, and wasn't really necessary since Burbank wasn't under any real pressure at the time, and Burbank immediately distances himself from the defence. I then got to thinking about the different possibilities: Scenario 1: Burbank and York are both scum. York uses his accusation of Wilder to defend Burbank. In this scenario, of course Burbank will instantly distance himself from that obvious link. The scum all accuse York of being a moron. York stomps off into the airlock without a space suit. Scenario 2: Burbank and York are both town. Why then is York so sure Burbank is town? Is he aware of something? Why doesn't he say what it is, or at least just say 'I've spoken to Burbank and I think he's town?' In this scenario, Burbank would most likely ignore the defence altogether. Scenario 3: Burbank is scum, York is town. The same questions apply to York as in scenario 2, except this time Burbank would definitely distance himself straight away. Scenario 4: Burbank is town, York is scum. Now York's defence of Burbank could only be a deliberate attempt to turn the spotlight onto Burbank. But Burbank isn't really under pressure; York is at the same time accusing Wilder, and it's difficult to see what this achieves other than to make York look suspicious. Of these four possibilities, 1 and 3 seem best to fit the actual events. Given York's subsequent actions, I'd put my money on scenario 1. However, both 1 and 3 imply quite strongly that Burbank is indeed scum, and perhaps we should lynch him after all. The alternative is to lynch York. She isn't here to defend herself, which I guess is bad etiquette or something (not like walking out, which is perfectly ok ) but it would save the Admiral finding a new personality for her. Again. Personally, I think Burbank is the better lynch, but I'll put this out there and see what everyone thinks.
fhomess Posted July 18, 2012 Posted July 18, 2012 Now, something I wonder as well, Wilder, why are you so convinced one of the people that voted for Mandel must be scum, I seem to be missing something fairly significant, as your case relies on this point... I will admit it's possible that scum did not vote for Mandel, but I think it's unlikely. Take a look at the vote tally from Day 1: Ensign Pewter / Palathadric : 9 (Rufus, Dakar A, Scouts, Scubacarrot, AwesomeStar, Hinckley, Shadows, KingOfTheZempk, darkdragon, ) Lieutenant Commander Gordon / Scubacarrot : 2 (Masked Builder, Dannylonglegs) Ensign Mandel / Dannylonglegs: 5 (Fugazi, CallMePie, Brickdoctor, Inconspicuous, fhomess) Lieutenant Willis / KingOfTheZempk : 2 (Tamamono, Waterbrick Down) Ensign Campbell / Dakar A : 1 (Peanuts) Non-Voters: Dragonator, Flare/LEGOman, swils Note that I added Waterbrick Down to the votes for Willis as it appears the admiral overlooked that vote. I also added the non-voters. The people in green have all been killed one way or another and are now confirmed as Loyalists. In my mind, there are four voting groups: 1. Pewter bandwagon 2. Alternate bandwagon (Mandel voters) 3. Independents (Gordon and Willis voters, Campbell has been unfortunately resolved) 4. Non-voters The only group large enough to contain a standard scum team as well as a townie or two is the Pewter bandwagon (provided you grant me that I'm removing myself from the Mandel voters as I know myself to be loyal, but you don't have to if you don't want to). I don't believe the scum all voted for Pewter. It wouldn't be the most logical behavior for scum. I think they split the vote so as to avoid a lynch and because they knew the primary candidates weren't on their team. So my thought was, pick a group, look at some behaviors out of that group, accuse, and see what happens. I'd be completely unsurprised if there was a scum hiding amongst the independents and/or non-voters. Actually you're wrong. On Day 2 we voted him out so we could analyze the voting patterns from Day 1. Unfortunately he turned up as town so we couldn't draw any major conclusions like we hoped. I really hope most of us didn't vote for him for that reason exclusively. That's a terrible reason to vote. Are you completely forgetting the discussion around his scum claim and how people felt that in the light of what happened on Day 1, it was the best evidence we had at the time? If you did it for vote analysis, where is your vote analysis? What has it taught you? On Day 1 I felt there was a stronger lynch candidate. Even though I passed Pewter's comment off as joke didn't mean I thought he was town. I voted for him the second time because I thought we could possibly learn some useful information for today. I wasn't the only one who believed we could learn something: This is a more reasonable justification for your turnaround, but aside from Falcon, the others you quote aren't in the clear yet, either.
Brickdoctor Posted July 18, 2012 Posted July 18, 2012 York and I have talked a little in private. I'll restate the conversation here: So, any leads? Seriously? What do you mean? I'm asking around, if you are wondering why I contacted you. It's the signature line of a sheep, and if I had any leads which I was willing to tell to someone I don't trust in private, I would have stated them in public already. Good point. It seemed like a better idea when I wrote it. My read on York based on that is "Sheep who wants to look like he knows what he's doing in private, and was quick to agree with me and brush off his sheepish PM as a some sort of funny and harmless mistake on his part." I 'distanced' myself from York because his argument that he wasn't defending me was obviously flawed. That he came quickly to my defense and then claimed not to be defending me is suspicious, so I pointed out the flaws.
Capt.JohnPaul Posted July 18, 2012 Posted July 18, 2012 It seems Samantha York doesn't have the stomach for this situation. I've been thinking about that whole business of York defending Burbank. Let's think aloud for a moment. I accuse Burbank based on a theory. York doesn't want to waste a lynch, and suggests we should investigate Burbank instead (despite there being no-one tabled as a more appropriate lynch at the time). This is a classic scum ploy: keep the scum alive for another night. And it raises the possibility of Burbank being the scum godfather, possibly showing up town in investigation. On the other hand, perhaps they've been talking in private and York is somehow convinced of Burbank's innocence. But then why not just say that? Next, Wilder is accused. York reveals a conversation between them which (in my eyes) actually makes Wilder look more town. But, York uses the accusation to imply again that Burbank must be town. This stood out as being a logical fallacy given that we don't yet know Wilder's allegiance, and wasn't really necessary since Burbank wasn't under any real pressure at the time, and Burbank immediately distances himself from the defence. I then got to thinking about the different possibilities: Scenario 1: Burbank and York are both scum. York uses his accusation of Wilder to defend Burbank. In this scenario, of course Burbank will instantly distance himself from that obvious link. The scum all accuse York of being a moron. York stomps off into the airlock without a space suit. Scenario 2: Burbank and York are both town. Why then is York so sure Burbank is town? Is he aware of something? Why doesn't he say what it is, or at least just say 'I've spoken to Burbank and I think he's town?' In this scenario, Burbank would most likely ignore the defence altogether. Scenario 3: Burbank is scum, York is town. The same questions apply to York as in scenario 2, except this time Burbank would definitely distance himself straight away. Scenario 4: Burbank is town, York is scum. Now York's defence of Burbank could only be a deliberate attempt to turn the spotlight onto Burbank. But Burbank isn't really under pressure; York is at the same time accusing Wilder, and it's difficult to see what this achieves other than to make York look suspicious. Of these four possibilities, 1 and 3 seem best to fit the actual events. Given York's subsequent actions, I'd put my money on scenario 1. However, both 1 and 3 imply quite strongly that Burbank is indeed scum, and perhaps we should lynch him after all. The alternative is to lynch York. She isn't here to defend herself, which I guess is bad etiquette or something (not like walking out, which is perfectly ok ) but it would save the Admiral finding a new personality for her. Again. Personally, I think Burbank is the better lynch, but I'll put this out there and see what everyone thinks. First, hello everyone. I was busy hiring a server for some beers. I see people have the idea I am scum. This is false. I'm sure you won't believe it, but is best to spare me, at least for a few days. I have had 3 personalities so far, the first one rarely posted talked, the other one was more active, and you have no clue of my playing style personality this time. What does this prove? All the personalities are different. If I was scum, all 3 personalities would have to follow a set plan by the Godfather, but I'm clearly not doing that, my personalities are bouncing around.
Brickdoctor Posted July 18, 2012 Posted July 18, 2012 I see people have the idea I am scum. This is false. I'm sure you won't believe it, but is best to spare me, at least for a few days. I have had 3 personalities so far, the first one rarely posted talked, the other one was more active, and you have no clue of my playing style personality this time. What does this prove? All the personalities are different. If I was scum, all 3 personalities would have to follow a set plan by the Godfather, but I'm clearly not doing that, my personalities are bouncing around. Um, no, not necessarily. Everyone has a different playing style, and the entire goal of developing a Scum playing style is to play exactly the same as if one is Town. The Scum don't necessarily follow a set playing style laid out by one of their own.
Capt.JohnPaul Posted July 18, 2012 Posted July 18, 2012 Um, no, not necessarily. Everyone has a different playing style, and the entire goal of developing a Scum playing style is to play exactly the same as if one is Town. The Scum don't necessarily follow a set playing style laid out by one of their own. True. All I'm saying is it would be wise to see where I go instead of depending on the "nooby mistakes" of before. We all know what happened when you lynched someone in the simulation that made noobish mistakes.
Brickdoctor Posted July 18, 2012 Posted July 18, 2012 True. All I'm saying is it would be wise to see where I go instead of depending on the "nooby mistakes" of before. We all know what happened when you lynched someone in the simulation that made noobish mistakes. We can't just ignore any mistakes you might have made with a different personality. The mistakes might be noobish, but that doesn't necessarily mean that that's the only reason they were made. It could just be that you are better at playing Scum than your previous personality.
Rufus Posted July 18, 2012 Posted July 18, 2012 York and I have talked a little in private. I'll restate the conversation here: So, any leads? Seriously? What do you mean? I'm asking around, if you are wondering why I contacted you. It's the signature line of a sheep, and if I had any leads which I was willing to tell to someone I don't trust in private, I would have stated them in public already. Good point. It seemed like a better idea when I wrote it. My read on York based on that is "Sheep who wants to look like he knows what he's doing in private, and was quick to agree with me and brush off his sheepish PM as a some sort of funny and harmless mistake on his part." I 'distanced' myself from York because his argument that he wasn't defending me was obviously flawed. That he came quickly to my defense and then claimed not to be defending me is suspicious, so I pointed out the flaws. Difficult to fake a PM conversation, but, let's see.... 16 July 9.12PM your time (USA = 5 to 8 hours earlier than UK time) = 17 July 02.12AM to 05.12AM on my clock. I was showing your post (to back up my statement), while commenting on what Hornby said. Sorry for the confusion. It's very risky, and rather foolish. Burbank would make a good Cop-target. So this conversation happened after York made this post. How very strange. Covering up for the mistake? It's a short conversation over a short period of time. Wouldn't you have kept him talking? I think the two of you hurriedly made this conversation to counter this very eventuality. Besides, in my experience, people unwilling to talk to me privately are invariably scum, so whatever York's allegiance this is pretty conclusive about you. This is enough for me. Vote: Julius Burbank 'MD' (Brickdoctor)
Brickdoctor Posted July 18, 2012 Posted July 18, 2012 Difficult to fake a PM conversation, but, let's see.... 16 July 9.12PM your time (USA = 5 to 8 hours earlier than UK time) = 17 July 02.12AM to 05.12AM on my clock. So this conversation happened after York made this post. How very strange. Covering up for the mistake? It's a short conversation over a short period of time. Wouldn't you have kept him talking? I think the two of you hurriedly made this conversation to counter this very eventuality. Besides, in my experience, people unwilling to talk to me privately are invariably scum, so whatever York's allegiance this is pretty conclusive about you. This is enough for me. How would it be "covering up for the mistake"? (assuming I'm thinking of the same "mistake" you are: his stating that I would be a good investigation target) Why should I have kept talking to him? I don't trust him, he sent me a pretty useless and sheepish message, I pointed that out, and he acted even more sheepish as he agreed with me. I don't see how what I could possibly have had to gain by continuing to talk to him. I also don't get how not talking to you makes me suspicious. If anything, I would be more likely to reach out were I Scum, already knowing who wasn't Scum and looking to deceive them. From a metagaming perspective, it's also not a little-known fact that I don't talk a lot in private during these situations.
Capt.JohnPaul Posted July 18, 2012 Posted July 18, 2012 We can't just ignore any mistakes you might have made with a different personality. The mistakes might be noobish, but that doesn't necessarily mean that that's the only reason they were made. It could just be that you are better at playing Scum than your previous personality. Better? I'll let you know, I've only played 1 other actual game.... of life. And I was town. So if I'm "good" or what ever at scum, please tell me why you think that. How would it be "covering up for the mistake"? (assuming I'm thinking of the same "mistake" you are: his stating that I would be a good investigation target) Why should I have kept talking to him? I don't trust him, he sent me a pretty useless and sheepish message, I pointed that out, and he acted even more sheepish as he agreed with me. I don't see how what I could possibly have had to gain by continuing to talk to him. I also don't get how not talking to you makes me suspicious. If anything, I would be more likely to reach out were I Scum, already knowing who wasn't Scum and looking to deceive them. From a metagaming perspective, it's also not a little-known fact that I don't talk a lot in private during these situations. Ahhh... so you think someone is scum, so you don't try and find anything via PM? If you were really town, how would a PM showing you playing detective harm you? For now, unless you change my mind. Vote: Julius Burbank 'MD' (Brickdoctor)
Brickdoctor Posted July 18, 2012 Posted July 18, 2012 Better? I'll let you know, I've only played 1 other actual game.... of life. And I was town. So if I'm "good" or what ever at scum, please tell me why you think that. I didn't say you were. I just said it was a possibility. The point is that we can't ignore the actions of your character's previous players. Ahhh... so you think someone is scum, so you don't try and find anything via PM? If you were really town, how would a PM showing you playing detective harm you? For now, unless you change my mind. Like I said, he was being a sheep. I didn't really think I could get anything out of him.
Capt.JohnPaul Posted July 18, 2012 Posted July 18, 2012 I didn't say you were. I just said it was a possibility. The point is that we can't ignore the actions of your character's previous players. How high of a possibility? It must be pretty have if you think I'm scum. Like I said, he was being a sheep. I didn't really think I could get anything out of him. It couldn't hurt. Thanks for helping us out here.
Rufus Posted July 18, 2012 Posted July 18, 2012 How would it be "covering up for the mistake"? (assuming I'm thinking of the same "mistake" you are: his stating that I would be a good investigation target) Why should I have kept talking to him? I don't trust him, he sent me a pretty useless and sheepish message, I pointed that out, and he acted even more sheepish as he agreed with me. I don't see how what I could possibly have had to gain by continuing to talk to him. I also don't get how not talking to you makes me suspicious. If anything, I would be more likely to reach out were I Scum, already knowing who wasn't Scum and looking to deceive them. From a metagaming perspective, it's also not a little-known fact that I don't talk a lot in private during these situations. You didn't approach me; I didn't approach you. I was talking generally about people who brush me off when I approach them, and specifically about your reaction to York's approach to you, assuming it was a genuine conversation, which I doubt. Scum are often caught out in PM so are wary of private conversations - they have to maintain an increasing web of lies. For townies, it's a great way to get a feeling off others and help to form alliances. Otherwise you're left following along like the sheep you seem to resent so much. York suggesting you'd be a good investigation target rings immediate alarm bells. It links the two of you, with no good explanation unless you had been talking privately - which by your own admission didn't happen until after the event - leaving the likelihood that you're both scum.
Tamamono Posted July 18, 2012 Posted July 18, 2012 I accuse Burbank based on a theory. York doesn't want to waste a lynch, and suggests we should investigate Burbank instead (despite there being no-one tabled as a more appropriate lynch at the time). This is a classic scum ploy: keep the scum alive for another night. And it raises the possibility of Burbank being the scum godfather, possibly showing up town in investigation. On the other hand, perhaps they've been talking in private and York is somehow convinced of Burbank's innocence. But then why not just say that? This is a good point, but I've actually seen noobish town do this as well to seem helpful. And I'm sure you all know how disdainful I am of godfather theories. However, despite that, I think Burbank would be an O.K. lynch today. He's been taking the middle road, and the point about lying about the scum team is a good one. In addition, I'm starting to think Wilder's innocent from his level-headed defense, and, like you say, the convos he had with LEGOman's character make him look less scum. Scenario 1: Burbank and York are both scum. York uses his accusation of Wilder to defend Burbank. In this scenario, of course Burbank will instantly distance himself from that obvious link. The scum all accuse York of being a moron. York stomps off into the airlock without a space suit. Mhm, knowing Burbank, I think he'd distance himself from York pretty fast after that. However, I'm kinda thinking that York's mistakes were that of a bored vanilla townie. When she first arrived, she asked for PM chains, right? Well, she was a very noobish player, and she likely wanted some action. If she was scum, she'd have more than enough action - why beg for PMs and go around PMing people? Food for thought. Scenario 2: Burbank and York are both town. Why then is York so sure Burbank is town? Is he aware of something? Why doesn't he say what it is, or at least just say 'I've spoken to Burbank and I think he's town?' In this scenario, Burbank would most likely ignore the defence altogether. Yeah, this would be definitely possible as well, but I kind of think Burbank's response to York is not that of a townie. Scenario 4: Burbank is town, York is scum. Now York's defence of Burbank could only be a deliberate attempt to turn the spotlight onto Burbank. But Burbank isn't really under pressure; York is at the same time accusing Wilder, and it's difficult to see what this achieves other than to make York look suspicious. This is the only one I don't see. Someone like York wouldn't think to do that. Personally, I think Burbank is the better lynch, but I'll put this out there and see what everyone thinks. As do I. In addition, Daly makes a spot-on point about fake PMs - I don't think he'd call him out on it unless he was a townie certain about his decision, so I'll follow his lead here. Vote: Julius Burbank 'MD' (Brickdoctor)
Capt.JohnPaul Posted July 18, 2012 Posted July 18, 2012 York suggesting you'd be a good investigation target rings immediate alarm bells. It links the two of you, with no good explanation unless you had been talking privately - which by your own admission didn't happen until after the event - leaving the likelihood that you're both scum. Woah woah woah, back up the cart. When did I say he was an investigation target? Or was that my other ego? The only logical thing I could think of is that if Julius is town, I'm town too, because that means he wasn't the godfather. If Julius is scum, woo-hoo, I'm town also. Why would I suggest an investigation on my fellow scum, if I was scum at all? (I'm not.)
Brickdoctor Posted July 18, 2012 Posted July 18, 2012 How high of a possibility? It must be pretty have if you think I'm scum. MegaBloks, I forgot that you and LEGOman are the same. In that case, if you are Scum, you are better at playing that role, because you haven't rushed to someone's defense and then claimed to not be defending him. Congratulations. Scum are often caught out in PM so are wary of private conversations - they have to maintain an increasing web of lies. For townies, it's a great way to get a feeling off others and help to form alliances. Otherwise you're left following along like the sheep you seem to resent so much. It's also a great way for Townies to get tricked by the Scum, and working in public allows the rest of the Town to see where any evidence one has is coming from. Not all important information is gained and exchanged in private; one can form one's own suspicions based on the behavior of others in public. York suggesting you'd be a good investigation target rings immediate alarm bells. It links the two of you, with no good explanation unless you had been talking privately - which by your own admission didn't happen until after the event - leaving the likelihood that you're both scum. That's a valid point. I still have no explanation for his quick defense of me unless he's Scum. That doesn't make me Scum, though. I won't go into the possible motives for his doing so if he's Scum and I'm Town, since that would lead to a discussion that would quickly turn into unhelpful WIFOM.Which reminds me, I Vote: Samantha York (Capt.JohnPaul). Why would I suggest an investigation on my fellow scum, if I was scum at all? (I'm not.) As has been said before, I could be the Godfather, and you could be trying to get me cleared.
Scouty Posted July 18, 2012 Posted July 18, 2012 See? Commander Walters has spoken up quite a few times, yet not once he has voiced the shadow of an opinion on the present accusations. How's that for flying under the radar? Active yet not really, I bet he will just jump on the most promising bandwagon when it will have gained momentum. The worst thing is, it wouldn't even mean that Commander Walters is scum. We just can't tell. So yeah, I'd rather have people summarise and repeat, and at least chime in on accusations so that we can retrospectively try to figure out their allegiance, instead of just voting late in the day when the direction of the vote is already obvious. I've loudly presented my opinion in the past couple of days, and now that everything that happened in those first two days just completely floundered this morning, it's hardly surprising that I've nothing to base my opinions on anymore! I have become wearier of loudly announcing my opinions because I’ve faulted more than I have been successful with them, though not to say they had no value. So, please excuse the lack of opinion from me while others have been less opinionated. In regard to this “late voting”, you will notice that my votes have been in the beginning of these bandwagons, right? Day 1: My vote on Pewter was placed, at first, to get him talking, because we had not heard from him lately. The vote stood because it was near the end of the day and we needed a lynch, something you are very much for and something that very much did not happen. Day 2: Among the first to vote as well, a vote I placed with confidence based on my discussions privately and of evidence in the thread. I don't know where you're getting the idea that I've just been voting late in the day (unless you're not talking about me, then just ignore this ). I have been vocal, and my discussions both here and in private have formulated my opinions for the past two days, however wrong they were, to which I have based my actions on. I had a growing a suspicion on you, having been much more under the radar than I and through your logic, but it’s nice to see your fully-fledged colors today, Lt. Daly, colors…sorry, colours that make me doubt of your scumminess, so far. I’m curious, however, as to why you chose me out of several other people who have been much more off the radar than I? I must admit, I couldn’t get a grip with your logic on the case about Burbank earlier. I still have problems grasping around it, however York and Burbank’s actions today have evolved your very big “if” into something that’s worth pressuring on, and something I think is the best lynch for today.
Capt.JohnPaul Posted July 18, 2012 Posted July 18, 2012 \Which reminds me, I Vote: Samantha York (Capt.JohnPaul). Nice OMGUS. (By the way, that sounds like a burger.) Serrrvveeerrr!! You still haven't answered my question on why I have a high possibility of being scum. Why? Because I didn't do something that you thought a scum did? That makes no sense, that makes me town. As has been said before, I could be the Godfather, and you could be trying to get me cleared. But we're lynching you.
Brickdoctor Posted July 18, 2012 Posted July 18, 2012 Nice OMGUS. (By the way, that sounds like a burger.) Serrrvveeerrr!! You still haven't answered my question on why I have a high possibility of being scum. Why? Because I didn't do something that you thought a scum did? That makes no sense, that makes me town. I forgot that you and LEGOman are the same, so I didn't think you were Scum when I first stated that it was possibility. Now, I think you're Scum, based on the actions of LEGOman. (and, by the way, it's not OMGUS, because you haven't stated that you think I'm Scum, and even if you did, then it would still not be OMGUS, because my vote would be based on the actions of your character way back when your character was defending me) But we're lynching you. Exactly. If we're both Scum and I'm the Godfather, you could have been trying to get me investigated instead of lynched so that I'd be shown as Town instead of dead. Or even if I'm not the Godfather, you have been trying to get me investigated instead of lynched so that I'd survive another Night to perform whatever action I might have. I know we're not both Scum, so none of that is possible, but I think that that clarifies Daly's point.
Hinckley Posted July 18, 2012 Posted July 18, 2012 Weird, frustrating and strangely enjoyable? Sounds about right. Now what are you doing up, you are supposed to be dead. I'm not Falcon, I'm a tree stump, you dick.
Capt.JohnPaul Posted July 18, 2012 Posted July 18, 2012 I forgot that you and LEGOman are the same, so I didn't think you were Scum when I first stated that it was possibility. Now, I think you're Scum, based on the actions of LEGOman. (and, by the way, it's not OMGUS, because you haven't stated that you think I'm Scum, and even if you did, then it would still not be OMGUS, because my vote would be based on the actions of your character way back when your character was defending me) Exactly. If we're both Scum and I'm the Godfather, you could have been trying to get me investigated instead of lynched so that I'd be shown as Town instead of dead. Or even if I'm not the Godfather, you have been trying to get me investigated instead of lynched so that I'd survive another Night to perform whatever action I might have. I know we're not both Scum, so none of that is possible, but I think that that clarifies Daly's point. Oh well. I still want my burger. But I'm NOT SCUM TRYING TO GET YOU INVESTIGATED. I'M TRYING TO GET YOU LYNCHED. Everything I highlighted in red in your post is a lie. You KNOW we're both not scum? Both of your theories just stated that we both are scum.
Scubacarrot Posted July 18, 2012 Posted July 18, 2012 I'm not Falcon, I'm a tree stump, you dick. Sorry, I could not tell, you look the same. If you ask me, I say we don't lynch either of them, obviously Wilder is a much better target. Right? Riiiight? Guys? Anyone? Oh who am I kidding. To me at this point, it looks like Burbank is trying to drag York with him in his fall. Prove me wrong.
Capt.JohnPaul Posted July 18, 2012 Posted July 18, 2012 Sorry, I could not tell, you look the same. If you ask me, I say we don't lynch either of them, obviously Wilder is a much better target. Right? Riiiight? Guys? Anyone? Oh who am I kidding. To me at this point, it looks like Burbank is trying to drag York with him in his fall. Prove me wrong. Well.. his hair does seem kind of evil. *shudder* it crawls off his head at night and chokes its victims.
Brickdoctor Posted July 18, 2012 Posted July 18, 2012 You KNOW we're both not scum? Both of your theories just stated that we both are scum. I know we're not both Scum because I know I'm not Scum. And I said "If we're both Scum". They're not my theories; they're possible situations that I stated in order to clarify Daly's point that you seemed not to understand.
Capt.JohnPaul Posted July 18, 2012 Posted July 18, 2012 I know we're not both Scum because I know I'm not Scum. And I said "If we're both Scum". They're not my theories; they're possible situations that I stated in order to clarify Daly's point that you seemed not to understand. But it makes no sense, those theories! I'm not trying to clear the godfather by investigation. I'm lynching you right here! Well if you're not scum, who is?
Recommended Posts