In post 624, DeltaWave wrote: I've already explained.
ORLY?
I dont remember you explaining why DJ just disappeared off your suspects list...
or why Meta is now valuable...
huh.
In post 624, DeltaWave wrote: I've already explained.
In post 625, Slandaar wrote:In post 624, DeltaWave wrote: I've already explained.
ORLY?
I dont remember you explaining why DJ just disappeared off your suspects list...
or why Meta is now valuable...
huh.
In post 631, Slandaar wrote:the case has nothing to do with you not posting during a certain period.
In post 633, Slandaar wrote:
Then you were saying the case is that you didnt post in a 12 hour period.
Its not.
Thats not it at all.
Why do you misrep continually?
In post 582, DeltaWave wrote:even though I said yesterday I wouldn't read the thread for about 12 hours.
In post 629, DeltaWave wrote:In Post 662, you stated that DeltaWave claimed "he couldn't post in said timeframe." I proved that to be a lie in my Post 664.
In post 278, DeltaWave wrote:In post 275, Slandaar wrote:or, if you could present the overwhelming case against Painted that would be good too Delta...
Even though I may end up repeating what other people have said, I will do this. You may not see it until tomorrow though, as I have a night class and I might come home so late that I will end up passing out.
In post 314, DeltaWave wrote:
The sheer number of alarm bells Painted has raised, from the very start of the game up until now, is staggering. It's been discussed at length in this thread; in fact, the first few pages seem devoted solely to this topic. I don't know if a rehash of individual points will do anyone any good.
In post 436, DeltaWave wrote:I explained why I found Painted scummy; for the most part, others had made the case before me so I wasn't going to repeat it, but I referred to the Skenvoy/Painted interaction earlier in the game.
In post 438, DeltaWave wrote:
Painted's knee jerk reactions in the first three pages of the game are reason enough to be suspicious of him. But the case on Painted has pretty much gone stale in the last ten pages, and Painted's case against DJ gave him some townpoints in my eyes.
In post 426, DeltaWave wrote:Painted was the scummiest player in the thread at the time I made that comment, but times change. Painted made some excellent points against DJ that are making me question his scumminess. Then DV comes along and says he'll support a lynch of almost everyone in the game, even though all those people can't possibly be scum. I have a trifecta of scumminess on my hands. The deadline is coming up, though, so a decision must be made soon. The possibility of DV being scum is attractive, but I don't know if that's only because "Painted v. DJ" is causing me headaches.
In post 502, DeltaWave wrote:
P-Edit: I'm in the midst of determining who is worse, PFoD or DV. If I'm still stumped after a while of thinking about it, I'll default to PFoD.
In post 391, DeltaWave wrote:Painted made some good points against DJ in his last case. In fact, some elements of that case are on my own personal list of strong scum-tells. Yet, I also suspect Painted. I'm trying to sort this out in my head.
In post 462, DeltaWave wrote:He could be, but I haven't seen a good case against him.
In post 256, DeltaWave wrote:
I don't know much about your meta. I've only played one game with you before (my newbie game.)
In post 365, DeltaWave wrote:
@DeasVeil - I absolutely hate meta-based arguments so so so so so much.
In post 582, DeltaWave wrote:
I know you to be a very reasonable player when you are town. I've seen your townplay and you are not inclined toward making bad cases
In post 614, DeltaWave wrote:Plus, I know Slandaar is a good townie. I've played with him before and he formulated some of the best cases in that game. Then he comes out with this. This isn't Slandaar-town.
In post 543, Slandaar wrote:DV never lurked after being accused, im sure of it, you people who are suggesting he did PARTICULARLY DELTA need to explain.
In post 544, DeltaWave wrote:
It's not like he stopped posting entirely, but he did back off significantly.
In post 545, Slandaar wrote:oh hi delta, thats amazing, where did you come from?!
In post 546, DeltaWave wrote:
You asked what I thought, so I told you.You're really grasping for straws here.
In post 547, Slandaar wrote:that is the absolute definition of lurking
In post 548, DeltaWave wrote:What are you on about?
In post 622, Slandaar wrote:Delta doesnt understand the case this is the problem people are picking at arguments that are not the case here it is simple;
Delta lurked
He tries to say he couldnt post in the said timeframe and was a coincidence, i show that he had posted previously in that timeframe so coincidence seems unlikely.
All this 12 hours stuff is him trying to defend himself from the lurking but literally it doesnt matter, fact is simple; he still has not commented on anything other than the post i called him out on, which implies he HAD read everything hence lurking when i posted. Otherwise he would have made some mention of it afterwards when he caught up.
I even say its either coincidence or lurking, but he tries to completely deny he could post before that point, why? it makes no sense, what has that got to do with anything? how am i supposed to know if he can or cant post then? i showed he does post in a period hes saying he doesnt, the evidence points to lurking.
In post 631, Slandaar wrote:the case has nothing to do with you not posting during a certain period.