Because Nacho isn't scum in my other grouping.And how am I presenting a false choice if Nacho is scum (as one of your groupings above states)?
You "don't know if you noticed"? We've reached Maximum Bullshit levels here.I don't know if I did or didn't notice other people mentioning him as a suspect
Because you didn't do anything else besides vote Whiskers. You didn't try to get us to understand your reasons for voting her, or seriously push the wagon. You just looked like you were trying to be unique, but in reality you just wasted everyone's time.In post 949, havingfitz wrote:Uhh...I was on Whiskers for less than 2 pages. How is trying to start a wagon on someone I suspect throwing my vote away? I moved my vote when her wagon failed to get support. Considering I started the Monty wagon (which you eventually joined) and joined the Fegelein wagon (which you joined me on) till the end of D1 I hardly think a short time on Whiskers is "throwing away"my vote.
I noticed.In post 950, mikeburnfire wrote:You "don't know if you noticed"? We've reached Maximum Bullshit levels here.I don't know if I did or didn't notice other people mentioning him as a suspect
From what I gathered, you had (3) reasons to vote Nacho. The "being on both lynches" isn't a good reason on its own, by your own admission. You've also conceded the flaws in your [still alive] = [more likely to be scum] argument. Nacho has (IMO) adequately explained himself on his sudden change of heart. Your case on Nacho is almost completely dismantled. Either put forward more evidence, or focus on somebody else.Being on both lynches on it's own isn't a good reason. In conjunction with my other suspicions towards Nacho it is.
Nothing to say to #951?In post 955, havingfitz wrote:Bonus points to Whiskers for getting my point to mbf.
Negative points to mbf for his level of wrongness. It is starting to get to the point I think it's intentional.
I was hoping you would respond to the little bit I posted towards you beforehand. I want to talk, chat, see what's going on with you. I'm a strong suspect of yours, but you aren't paying attention to me at all. Why? Our suspects are very similar at the moment so if you're town it'd be a pretty shitty move to lynch you today, assuming we're correct about the other two BUT you're the threat of the scumteam that I'm worried about taking care of today. So, explain your suspicion on me a little more. I'll do the same for you.In post 920, havingfitz wrote:You mean post 916?
All I would say is it sounds like a shit reason to jump on the TAM wagon simply because he was an alternative choice to Fege...who you say is town...and yet who at the time you moved your vote to TAM you were voting. So apparently Fege wasn't THAT town in your eyes.
Also...wrt your response to Whiskers...you aren't voting anyone.
In post 953, mikeburnfire wrote:Of course you don't agree with me, Whiskers-- You're Fitz's scummate.
Sure, he either noticed it or he didn't. But he's fully capable of not remembering if he had remembered it at that point.mikeburnfire wrote:I can understand not remembering how you felt at the time. But that's not what you said. You said you don't remember if you noticed. That's a bold-faced lie. You either noticed it or you didn't.
This if also fully possible. If he's scum. Your attack on him makes that a little doubtful.In post 953, mikeburnfire wrote:Fitz's logic that 2-3 scum must be on TAM's lynchwagon was a convenient way to take two of his group off the table today.
Yes, and that worked so well. So well, in fact, that neither one of them acknowledged it.In post 953, mikeburnfire wrote:Don't think I forgot how you kissed Survivor's ass to make that 3-man voting block, either.
DCL, obviously. Why do you have to ask this? And why do you specify Monty, specifically?In post 953, mikeburnfire wrote:Who's the third person in your group: DCLXVI, or Monty?
AD HOM alert!!! AD HOM alert!!!!> Are you trying to be stupid or does it come naturally? I'm saying I do not remember if I noticed others voicing suspicions towards TAM. I'm not saying I did or didn't notice those voiced suspicions. I'm saying I don't remember if I did. Noticing and remembering are not exclusive of each other.In post 956, mikeburnfire wrote:I can understand not remembering how you felt at the time. But that's not what you said. You said you don't remember if you noticed. That's a bold-faced lie. You either noticed it or you didn't.
No where do I say I'm not paying attention. I said that when I am catching up I start off by updating my vote spreadsheet and not reading the posts. So the fact I knew the votecounts means nothing...just like whether I read the posts or not means nothing...because (see above).In post 956, mikeburnfire wrote:You skimmed the page to make your VC, focusing on vote tallies. But let's just say for a moment that you're telling the truth-- that you weren't paying attention to what people were saying. You put Feng at L-2, which means you were being reckless with your vote since you hadn't been reading. Since you don't seem to be the reckless type, I am more inclined to believe you to be a liar.
What is your case on me? You allude to having more than "still alive", but you've haven't yet brought that up.In post 965, havingfitz wrote:Nacho...what post did you want me to chat with you about? If not 916...do you mean 889 and 890? You don't say anything worth commenting on or if you do...it's probably already been brought up on your behalf by mbf who seems to be your staunchest defender today. I'm not ignoring you. I don't vote people I ignore.
If not 916...do you mean 889 and 890? You don't say anything worth commenting on or if you do...it's probably already been brought up on your behalf by mbf who seems to be your staunchest defender today. I'm not ignoring you. I don't vote people I ignore.
Holy shit. I don't think I could write a more hypocritical sentence sentence if I tried.AD HOM alert!!! AD HOM alert!!!!> Are you trying to be stupid or does it come naturally?
Then you haven't been paying me attention.In post 966, Nachomamma8 wrote:What is your case on me? You allude to having more than "still alive", but you've haven't yet brought that up.In post 965, havingfitz wrote:Nacho...what post did you want me to chat with you about? If not 916...do you mean 889 and 890? You don't say anything worth commenting on or if you do...it's probably already been brought up on your behalf by mbf who seems to be your staunchest defender today. I'm not ignoring you. I don't vote people I ignore.
If not 916...do you mean 889 and 890? You don't say anything worth commenting on or if you do...it's probably already been brought up on your behalf by mbf who seems to be your staunchest defender today. I'm not ignoring you. I don't vote people I ignore.
In post 921, havingfitz wrote:7)... I’m voting him for being on both mislynches (he is 1 of 2 on both); still being here; and his unexplained and IMO irrational move to TAM.
In post 967, mikeburnfire wrote:Holy shit. I don't think I could write a more hypocritical sentence sentence if I tried.
Sorry, where were you where LS was grilling me on my reasons for the move to TAM?In post 968, havingfitz wrote:7)... I’m voting him for being on both mislynches (he is 1 of 2 on both); still being here; and his unexplained and IMO irrational move to TAM.
If you were reading the game, then why don't you 'remember' how you felt about TAM, given that he was actively being discussed?As for my Feng vote...this is one of the best examples of strawmanning I have ever seen. What you are essentially saying is that, because I do not read every word between the votes when I'm catching up in a game...I subsequently "hadn't been reading" the entire game and therefore placed Feng unnecessarily in jeopardy by putting him at L-2. Hello?
Really? Because immediately after his lynch, you said you were bothered by the speed of the wagon.The only reason I'm bothered about his lynch, in hindsight, is because he was town
I can use buzzwords too!AD HOM alert!!! [...] This is an overexaggeration, a misrep, and a lovely strawman.
I may not be an expert on logical fallacies, but I'm pretty sure that's not how ad hom works...In post 965, havingfitz wrote:AD HOM alert!!! AD HOM alert!!!!
In post 965, havingfitz wrote:Lastsurvivor....what about Post 951? I think I've given my thoughts on everything you mentioned in 951. You didn't ask me a question...and anything I responded with would probably be a repeat of what I have already said...since nothing has changed.
Ok, fine, I'll put it in the form of a question:I acknowledged your block...that is until I realized the three of us don't have a common preferred lynch target.In post 964, Whiskers wrote:Yes, and that worked so well. So well, in fact, that neither one of them acknowledged it.