In post 1731, copper223 wrote:And yes Thor, this is not a meta argument as you classify it, you would call it a gut read.
I would call that a meta read - just one with a painfully tiny sample size.
In post 1738, mnemonicdevice wrote:@copper and thor, so long as I didn't miss a vote anywhere, if you used only the VC then you would recieve the exact same results as I got. Policy lynch me for lying if that is wrong.
Copy that.
@Gork - I don't really find Mneumonic scummy for his "lie" - this is different than the way Elusive lied. I can explain if you need me to, but I think it's pretty obvious at this stage the differences...though I suppose maybe that's me setting myself up for rage.
Eh, look at the way each responded to being called a liar. One backed up their comment with a *vast wall*...that didn't support their claims. The other said 'yup, bit of a derp, but if you look at it this way you get my info'.
Barring someone being less lazy than me (and I don't expect that in this game, particularly) and researching the VCs to see if there is any other discrepency (and, I'll admit, him saying there isn't one makes me suspect there won't be one) I would not particularly support the Mneumonic wagon at this point with my (admittadly vague - albeit not due to lack of asking!) understanding of the case on him.
In post 1742, Marquis wrote:busy week, will post sometime tomorrow
You are full of fail.