Is it because I'm sexy? Rawr.Glork wrote:IGMEOY: Frozen Atlantic
I'm following my Harajuku by association = scum theory and voting for
Despite the fact that they said this one post ago -I did not cast suspicion on you about the stupid Someone joke.I don't even care about that. Nice misrepresentation there, dude.
You can almost hear the tires screech in the head of any logical, sane poster. In other news, Ibby did not have sexual relations with that woman, and there ARE weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Somewheres. Moving on...So essentially he voted for you while talking about a Bonkers wagon.That still doesn't add up. Why not just vote Bonkers?
How much more clearly can I say this? Do you speak Spanish? I don't, but I can run it through Babelfish and give a really, really bad translation that you can try to decipher on your free time. Making a post about how retarded a page and a half of OMGUS is followed by jumping on an OMGUS based bandwagon... scummy, yes?Why not Sage? For the same reason I'm not voting for you. I don't want to be tagged as a hypocrite for staying out of the you/Glork catfight by jumping into the Sage/PA catfight.
There's the post in its entireity. It's pretty plainly a "guilty this way, but even if _____, he's guilty that way" post. You said I voted for him "while talking about a Bonkers bandwagon". I think if it was meant hypothetically, you would have phrased it differently.My point is he voted for someone (you) who had no votes while stating we need to lynch someone and commenting on wanting to pressure someone to claim.
So essentially he voted for you while talking about a Bonkers wagon. That still doesn't add up. Why not just vote Bonkers?
But the thing is, it isn't constructive. It's empty talk. It doesn't bring us closer to anything.FATty ACid wrote:FrAt, the OMGUSing between glork etc was joking and actually stated. You don't go around stating it's OMGUS when you're being serious about things, because just saying "oh my god you suck" before voting is obviously not being serious.
I wrote:Whatever Ibby. Glork made the same assumption a few pages back without so much as a peep from you.
Ibby wrote:That is a flat out lie.
Glork wrote:With Sage and Rosso, is it reasonable to believe that either one of them is scum or that they're both town? I'm finding it kind of unlikely they could be scum together at this point. Thoughts?
It's scaring all of us, too.ibby wrote:Glork, get outta my head. I'm agreeing with you far too much and it scares me.
I know being scum is frustrating, but there is no need to break out the BIG TEXTZ. Please? Thank You.ibaesha wrote:This does not equate to LYNCHING. It equated to pressuring them to participate more. This was also yesterday when I didn't believe the lurkers were actually ABSENT. When I realized today that these people were actually just not here, I began pushing for replacements.Ibby wrote:Happy to go after lurkers at any time too. They're not helping things, at all.
Very well. So you "[find] it kind of unlikely they could be scum together at this point.", but wouldn't go after Rosso is Sage was town or vice versa?THAT WAS MY STATEMENT. Not Glork's.
Yes. That's what I'm saying. See, Ibby... I get ideas. Then I stick with them until something better (Besides another person's say-so) comes along.Also, you are trying to say if one is not scum, the other must be with the 'if we lynch Sage and he's town, we should lynch Rosso tomorrow' thing.
This is how I play. Read Futurama.That's freaking scummy, it's setting up lynches and in addition to your rolefishing and previous behavior, you are WELL deserving of my vote.
Rosso wrote:And baby, on ibby's playstyle. Ibbyscum is easy to id from 10 miles away. Its easy to see when she plays scummy anywhere. But when people are rude to her to a high degree then she explodes in a cloud of what would otherwise be seen as ibbyscum. Frozen's being a complete and utter bastard and should be shot -
/ coughs for town's attentionibaesha wrote:With the cop and the vig dead, any gun owners are guaranteed scum, IMO.