i do see the merits on why GC can be scum but you should also be willing to admit your own flaws as well (like how GC was showing you follwing the logic does lead to that conclusion)
GC, gun to head am i town or scum?
I just dislike game breaking strategies.
What reasons do you see for GC scum?
even if you dislike it you should be willing to admit that GC did have a point on you on that merit but this can be saved for post game.
his stances.
gtg eat i will elaborate later after poker with dunk me
i do see the merits on why GC can be scum but you should also be willing to admit your own flaws as well (like how GC was showing you follwing the logic does lead to that conclusion)
GC, gun to head am i town or scum?
I just dislike game breaking strategies.
What reasons do you see for GC scum?
why do you dislike game breaking strategies
it's a new setup the point is to try to break it
@thesupertriomusical on Instagram, come see it if you’re in LA area, I wrote it!
In post 321, ika wrote:GC, gun to head am i town or scum?
At the moment? Town.
I just get antsy when I see buddying.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
I came to the opposite conclusion w/r/t Newbie and YGS from the same set of posts (everything up to page 8). Why your reads on those two?
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
Also Persivul's Post 271 is a muddle. Post 281 and Post 283 is an equally confusing follow up. Like, Persivul is reaching to attack his voter kind of muddle.
Ugh. I don't like anything on Page 12.
-----
@YGS:
- YGS's interaction with ika is bad.
Spoiler: oh god I couldn't help myself
In post 293, You Got Schooled wrote:@GC, you say in post 246 this attitude is scummy, but you realise that it's not just the YGS slot that feels that way? Why is this only a problem for our slot?
Because you pushed it first.
In post 293, You Got Schooled wrote:I don't mind the fact you missed it. I can even believe it. What is scummy is how you tried to paint us in a bad light for it, without checking yourself first.
This might be a thing if I didn't immediately undercut that "painting <you> in a bad light for it."
I can't even figure out how you could construe me as fencesitting.
It's like you're just taking scum accusation terminology and just throwing it around because it sounds good.
-----
@Newbie:
In post 261, Newbie wrote:I also completely agree abut GC. They seemed to be laying it on a little too hard when accepting the plan.
I'm still 100% down with the plan. None of ika's problems really bothered me now that I actually read through the ika/BB exchange.
-----
Feeling better about ika, but I do not feel confident in my ability to evaluate his type of player.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
I think his 180 on the BBmolla plan is also iffy, as well as his mix of knowing what is going on + "I'm newbie so help me out here"
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
Your plan still holds up if we simply start it a night other than N1, yeah?
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
It might be optimal pre-LYLO plan when town sometimes NL anyways?
I don't know specific circumstances when that occurs, just know that it occurs sometimes.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
