AMRUN IF YOU SEE THIS AND ARE TOWN: UNVOTE and read
putting your vote back up if you don`t like is fine.(well sort of but you get the point)
guess here comes another addition to the 'reactive' argument against me:
In post 1175, thunderwielder wrote:You also have focused primarily on the "slip", and used that as a case for me to be scum--which is just transparent OMGUS. We've already established that creating a case against someone does not make them scummy--or Hoppster would be scummy for his Mothrax tunnelling. You haven't responded in it in a way that's - hey, you're actually mistaken, but that's come out as "hey, you shouldn't be making this case, it's stupid, you must be scum!" Which are hardly the same thing.
- Did hoppster come with arguments, he didn`t believe in? (i don`t think so)
Yes my argument was 'OMGUS':
I believed you didn`t buy your own case. Pushing a case YOU don`t even believe is scummy.
The best part of this: You flat out admitted this.
In post 1027, thunderwielder wrote:Mr. Trow, since he isn't the roleblocker, could have made a slip yesterday. That, combined with Quilford's slot finding him suspicious enough to roleblock him twice, and with the other reads I have on everyone, makes me think he's one of the three. PLUS, we DID have a no Kill night one.
In post 1165, MrTrow wrote:1: The counterclaim call was never really serious except for that 1 time you took my problems with yout 1027 attempt as 'not reading at all'.
There wasn`t really anything else in there that could be addressed.
But if some shots on those are required (yes reactive i know)
A lot of emphasis on well...... the very reason doc+rb is the popular choice (i wasn`t actively around D1 + it`s some lack of suspicion that is required to be the rb-target here)
Also
In post 1160, thunderwielder wrote:Cool cool cool. I'm happy for conversation. I'm happy that you're not just tunnelling, but you're listening. That's nice for a change (not with you, but with the general population of the town--those that have been lynched, anyway)
bored of the game within 30 hours of a good conversation for a change, yeah right
Now for the mainly defensive ones:
In post 843, thunderwielder wrote:@Trow, looking forward to your Maruchan read, and maybe some views of your own, rather making up ones that don't seem to make sense and jumping on my vote (I'm really sick of people sheeping me without good reason). You said you'll meta him. Is your whole case based upon meta? How much is? Percentage will do again.
Me sheeping you?
Wasn`t my vote on maru for most of day 2?
wasn`t your 'day 2 maru case' mainly present in mine (true the 'lurk to reaction-test' was brought up before)
thunderwielder wrote: In post 1172, Tragedy wrote:You don't offer your opinions unless pressured, and when you did offer your opinions, they were very singular and on larger suspects.
True maru was a main target (the biggest wagon) when i finished my reread, but no new stuff and ONLY on larger suspects?
Who pointed out maru was willing to hammer the one who according to his own logic could be the doc?
Who pointed out that robocopter became active TWICE when this was required to save mothrax?
B.T.W thunder: how are you so sure both my partners still have to bus me?
By the way, your mum says hello.