![IGMEOU :igmeou:](./images/smilies/icon_igmeou.gif)
Care to contribute any readslist of your own rather than calling my one nullread disgusting?
No?
How about you keep your comments to yourself then.
In post 1750, lalaladucks wrote:
Care to contribute any readslist of your own rather than calling my one nullread disgusting?
No?
How about you keep your comments to yourself then.
In post 1745, Glass wrote:Farside wrote:
Yea this post clear has you defending RC.
Thanks for proving me correct.
Farside: Your past posts are defending RC!
Glass: Not really, heres why... -insert logic-
Farside: T-that post just proves it!
lala wrote:
Soz grapes, will do detailed reads tomorrow after Chem oral but just a quick overview of how I'm reading people atm:
Townies
lalaladucks
ArcAngel
Sakura Hana Banana
Gaiden
RedCoyote
Equinox
dunno
Katsuki
farside
grapes
Albert of Albuquerque
Elbirn
Cho
Demonies
lufan
massive
Glass
Hey Lala, what changed in your reads?
In post 1752, Elbirn wrote:In post 1750, lalaladucks wrote:
Care to contribute any readslist of your own rather than calling my one nullread disgusting?
No?
How about you keep your comments to yourself then.
Oh wow, that. That overdefensive reaction to me pointing out how gross it was for you to put one of your partners in your null reads.
Also, what is 1475. Oh, yes, my reads list. How'd that get there.
VOTE: Lalaladucks
Farside wrote:
However you have RC clearly saying the angel killed AA over the mafia.
Only way he could be that fucking sure is if
1) he is the angel which is call bs right now
2) he's scum that knows scum didn't kill AA.
Explain how it's not otherwise.
In post 1751, RedCoyote wrote:
Lalala, I dunno, I messed up. Thanks for having the courage to stick up for me, though. <3
In post 1757, Glass wrote:Farside wrote:
However you have RC clearly saying the angel killed AA over the mafia.
Only way he could be that fucking sure is if
1) he is the angel which is call bs right now
2) he's scum that knows scum didn't kill AA.
Explain how it's not otherwise.
It's possible that RC legitimately believes that the angel shot AA, and he believes everyone would come to the same conclusion as him. I don't think that's likely, so unlikely that I would be willing to lynch him, however (this is important):
If RC slipped, then scum know who the angel is.
I think it's likely that RC slipped, hence I am calling for an angel claim to say if they shot AA. If the angel says they shot AA, then we lynch RC. This is not a problem since scum will already know who the angel is.
If the angel comes out and says that they did not shoot AA, it is fairly obvious that RC's post was NOT a scumslip, and we should NOT lynch RC. This is not a problem since that means the angel was RB'd, and is probably going to be RB'd every night until the scum see a second kill go through (which would never happen).
Until that time comes, I'm happy pushing for a lynch on you.
In post 1756, lalaladucks wrote:In post 1752, Elbirn wrote:In post 1750, lalaladucks wrote:
Care to contribute any readslist of your own rather than calling my one nullread disgusting?
No?
How about you keep your comments to yourself then.
Oh wow, that. That overdefensive reaction to me pointing out how gross it was for you to put one of your partners in your null reads.
Also, what is 1475. Oh, yes, my reads list. How'd that get there.
VOTE: Lalaladucks
Oh, I didn't realise that your reads wouldn't change at all in 300 posts.
Thanks for the vote, looks nice on my resume!
In post 1690, Elbirn wrote:Also the angel fishing and open speculating rubs me the wrong way.
In post 1720, lalaladucks wrote:Don't mass claim just yet please.
In post 1773, lufan131 wrote:Any wagons I won't ride? I won't ride ones that fly, and am not too fond of rollercoaster cars. Oh, and a wagon on myself I don't feel like voting on.