House Dayne Posted December 10, 2007 Share Posted December 10, 2007 Anyone else think J-Lo is a prime suspect for Bon Jovi's symp? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Payne Posted December 10, 2007 Share Posted December 10, 2007 Anyone else think J-Lo is a prime suspect for Bon Jovi's symp? I would definitely be the best symp ever! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Thorne Posted December 10, 2007 Share Posted December 10, 2007 The case on you has nothing to do with the two joke votes. They were, after all, two joke votes. The case, as I see it, relies on the fact that you overreacted when he accused you of flip-flopping on your two joke votes. You took his joke too seriously, not the other way around. You might want to go back and read the posts from Jagger. From what I can tell, he's being quite serious with regard to his accusations about 'baseless voting'. He's come right out and said as much at least 2 times now. As for my 'overreaction'....I made a few jokes. J-Lo and Jagger interpreted me as being serious, and they reacted seriously. You jumped on. Everything since then has been a result of my difficulty in accepting that you people actually believe the things you are posting. The traditional response also includes some respect for your fellow players, and I'd rather like it if you'd show some. This is how I play the game. Its how I've always played. I doubt its going to change. As soon as people start making some small amount of logical sense, I'll start being a bit nicer. Promise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Payne Posted December 10, 2007 Share Posted December 10, 2007 As soon as people start making some small amount of logical sense, I'll start being a bit nicer. Promise. If you think I'm not making logical sense, then you're never going to be nicer because the logic isn't much clearer than it is right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Dayne Posted December 10, 2007 Share Posted December 10, 2007 If you think I'm not making logical sense, then you're never going to be nicer because the logic isn't much clearer than it is right now. So, do you actually think he's guilty? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Yronwood Posted December 10, 2007 Share Posted December 10, 2007 You might want to go back and read the posts from Jagger. From what I can tell, he's being quite serious with regard to his accusations about 'baseless voting'. He's come right out and said as much at least 2 times now. Ah, my issue with you is different from Jagger's then. I'm simply of the opinion that you overreacted to JLo's comment and are currently overreacting to her accusations now. To me, the two joke votes are simply that: joke votes. This is how I play the game. Its how I've always played. I doubt its going to change. As soon as people start making some small amount of logical sense, I'll start being a bit nicer. Promise. Pinky promise??????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Payne Posted December 10, 2007 Share Posted December 10, 2007 So, do you actually think he's guilty? No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Yronwood Posted December 10, 2007 Share Posted December 10, 2007 No. He is off his rocker though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Dayne Posted December 10, 2007 Share Posted December 10, 2007 No. Ta. It's nice to have things on the table. Cher? You have issues, but do they go so far as to say guilty? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Dayne Posted December 10, 2007 Share Posted December 10, 2007 Ah sorry cher, posted before i read you'd all but replied:-p In that case, i guess I'll follow conventional wisdom. I still have a tingling onmy spine screaming guilty, but i'd like to remove vote for now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Yronwood Posted December 10, 2007 Share Posted December 10, 2007 Ah sorry cher, posted before i read you'd all but replied:-p In that case, i guess I'll follow conventional wisdom. I still have a tingling onmy spine screaming guilty, but i'd like to remove vote for now. I'm actually curious whether Bon Jovi suspects any of his attackers or not. Not sure if his vote on you went from joke to serious. ...And I'll remove vote just so Stripe doesn't think I actually suspect MJ for anything (besides pulling a post-and-run, come back to us, MJ!) For our most benevolent and wonderful and hopefully wise king: 1 vote Jagger (Bon Jovi) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Thorne Posted December 10, 2007 Share Posted December 10, 2007 Nope, it seemed serious, not sarcastic. You don't have to make a case against someone to be serious. You can just as easily cast doubt on the statement being asked by turning it around on the accuser, exactly what you did. Understand that this is day 1 and the only thing we can go by this early is reactions to probes. You reacted poorly. That is the simple fact and you breaking it down to me won't change that. Anyone else would have just ignored the statement or laughed it off and said "yea, next up on my hit list is Michael Jackson." Instead, you twisted my words against me, wrote a sermon on how Day 1 is about jokes and then proceeded to break down the accusation. Again - I did not react poorly. I reacted with sarcasm. Perfectly acceptable reaction. Not my fault that you weren't able to tell the difference between a joke and a serious comment. You really do NEED to answer this question - What could possibly make you think that my answer to your initial question was serious? I want to know what led you to interpret it in that way. Because I honestly can't figure it out. How is it at all logical for me to 'cast doubt' against you for 'not wanting more than 2 people to be lynched in a game with 3 evil players'? I mean....you seriously think I'd make that accusation? What the fuck? Just out of curiosity, what's it matter if you were serious or not? Why make it into a big deal when no one else was? It was page 4 after all. I get the impression you're scared so as a result, you automatically jumped on the defensive. Your attempt to take a clearly non-serious statement, and categorize it as being serious (and therefore suspicious) makes you in turn suspicious. From my perspective, I'm not the one making a big deal out of anything here. You and Jagger and to some extent Cher are the ones who make no sense, and who have made this into an issue to which I have to respond. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Yronwood Posted December 10, 2007 Share Posted December 10, 2007 I mean....you seriously think I'd make that accusation? What the fuck? Yes, we think you were serious. You've asked this question before. Get over it. Edit for politeness: Please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Thorne Posted December 10, 2007 Share Posted December 10, 2007 Yes, we think you were serious. You've asked this question before. Get over it. I'll get over it when one of you explain to me how it makes sense as a serious accusation. *waits* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Dayne Posted December 10, 2007 Share Posted December 10, 2007 Your attempt to take a clearly non-serious statement, and categorize it as being serious (and therefore suspicious) makes you in turn suspicious. From my perspective, I'm not the one making a big deal out of anything here. You and Jagger and to some extent Cher are the ones who make no sense, and who have made this into an issue to which I have to respond. So, is it a genuine "I suspect at least one of you" here, or are you still just fighting your ground? As the only active, regular poster i haven't asked... Bon Jovi, do you seriously suspect anyone here is a bad guy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Dayne Posted December 10, 2007 Share Posted December 10, 2007 I sure hope you're mid-epic reply, and not just shirking the issue! ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Thorne Posted December 10, 2007 Share Posted December 10, 2007 Bon Jovi, do you seriously suspect anyone here is a bad guy? I think each of you (Jagger, Cher, J-Lo) belongs in 1 of 3 categories: 1) inexperienced and overzealous player 2) not a very good player (at least so far - hopefully any of you who fall into this category will improve as the game progresses) 3) evil player Its way too early to say who belongs where. To answer your question more directly - yes, I do think that at least one of you could be evil, based on the posts of the past hour. I doubt more than one of you is FM. Its quite possible that one of you is FM or Symp, or that two of your are a FM/Symp combination. Its also possible that all three of you just happen to fall into categories 1 and 2. I do know that if I was FM, and I saw a few people start to gang up on somebody early in the game, my first reaction would be to stay the hell away. The last thing I'd want to do is jump on the first mob to form. Especially since it was based on such poor reasoning. So thats a point in favor of whoever was the last to join in the fun (Cher?). Need to re-read and check that. Of course, while the last to jump in is the least likely to be FM, he's still equally likely to be a Symp. As an aside - I noticed a few mentions about 'putting pressure' on me, and 'cracking under pressure'. Which is hilarious. It's almost as if you are a bunch of new players who have read a few games, seen good players use techniques to great effect, and are now trying to mimic those techniques....without actually understanding the logic behind the moves, or the ways in which they should be applied. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Pommingham Posted December 10, 2007 Share Posted December 10, 2007 I'm finding John Bon Jovi suspicious as well. Clear over-reaction and doggedly demanding from each player that they declare him not suspicious. Looks to me like he's setting them up to use it against them later. And there's only room for one boy from New Jersey on this show. The Boss. And Mick, your jealousy is noted and understood. Why wouldn't you want to be me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Payne Posted December 10, 2007 Share Posted December 10, 2007 Again - I did not react poorly. I reacted with sarcasm. Perfectly acceptable reaction. Not my fault that you weren't able to tell the difference between a joke and a serious comment. You really do NEED to answer this question - What could possibly make you think that my answer to your initial question was serious? When three different people think your comment was serious, then it came across as serious. That is your fault. I don't know how you can think otherwise. Lets break down your response real fast since you don't seem to be able to move on until I do. Is there a limit? An accusation shortage that is threatening the group? I wasn't aware that we had to ration. Somebody should really think hard about adding that to the rules. To answer your question, there are 3 evil players. You can count, can't you, Ms. Lopez? So yes, I do want to get rid of more than 2 players. Are you trying to imply that you don't want the same? If so, why? The first paragraph is sarcasm. The problem is, it's sarcasm used to defend yourself. I ask a question and you answer it with questions back, all of which are defensive or deflective in nature. For example, I say you've made two accusations and ask if there is anyone else you want off, and you say "Is there a limit?" This is a defense of your original accusations. If there is no limit, then why can't I make more? What does it matter if I did want someone else off if there is no limit? That's what you're saying. Basically, you're saying my statement/question is baseless because there is no limit. The second paragraph is an attack on me. You take my question and twist it so it seems like I'm the bad guy. There is absolutely zero sarcasm in that paragraph. You deflected my question and turned it around on me. I want to know what led you to interpret it in that way. Because I honestly can't figure it out. How is it at all logical for me to 'cast doubt' against you for 'not wanting more than 2 people to be lynched in a game with 3 evil players'? I mean....you seriously think I'd make that accusation? What the fuck? It's logical because you go from being the accused to being the accuser. The fact that I picked that up and rolled with it shows you I'm not a person that can be wrapped in a logical word game. It doesn't matter if I "seriously" think you'd make that accusation because you did make that accusation. I don't have to think. It is there for all to see. I never said it was a strong accusation, nor did I say you made a case on me. The thing is, your first response was to react defensively then twist it into an offensive attack, hopefully moving the attention from yourself to me. That is logical and it's exactly what you did, whether you were conscious of the fact or not. The bottom line is that you chose to respond to my probe in a defensive manner instead of playing it off as yet another joke and rolling with it. That is something to note. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Dayne Posted December 10, 2007 Share Posted December 10, 2007 I'm finding John Bon Jovi suspicious as well. Clear over-reaction and doggedly demanding from each player that they declare him not suspicious. Looks to me like he's setting them up to use it against them later. And there's only room for one boy from New Jersey on this show. The Boss. And Mick, your jealousy is noted and understood. Why wouldn't you want to be me? Simple. You are dead. Either that, or you used a body double who happens to be dead instead at the Royal Albert Hall a couple of years ago. :-( edit: Or maybe someone stole your drugs and replaced them with sleeping pills that day too! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.