House Thorne 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. Two things: 1) Where did I doggedly demand that each player declare me not suspicious? Please provide a quote from me saying that. 2) Jumping on the mob after I say that a FM wouldn't want to jump on the mob doesn't clear you. Nice try though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Pommingham Posted December 10, 2007 Share Posted December 10, 2007 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! If anyone knows about the quality of musicianship among the walking dead, you'd qualify. Keith Richards has been dead for over 30 years. And didn't anyone tell you that I'm the next Woody Guthrie? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Dayne Posted December 10, 2007 Share Posted December 10, 2007 2) Jumping on the mob after I say that a FM wouldn't want to jump on the mob doesn't clear you. Nice try though. That wa smy first thought... but then, look at the times. I'm not sure it's possible to have read your reply then answered in such a coherent, planned way. If that was the act of a badguy "proving2 his innocence, he's got damn fast reflexes:p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Pommingham Posted December 10, 2007 Share Posted December 10, 2007 Two things: 1) Where did I doggedly demand that each player declare me not suspicious? Please provide a quote from me saying that. Why don't you try to insult me into agreeing with you? 2) Jumping on the mob after I say that a FM wouldn't want to jump on the mob doesn't clear you. Nice try though. That was crossposted and you know it. Mick's last post before yours was the last I'd read as you were "mid-epic post." Nice try trying to make what you just said was innocent look guilty. You do think of yourself as too clever by half, don't you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Payne Posted December 10, 2007 Share Posted December 10, 2007 That was crossposted and you know it. Mick's last post before yours was the last I'd read as you were "mid-epic post." Nice try trying to make what you just said was innocent look guilty. You do think of yourself as too clever by half, don't you? How much do you want to bet he's writing up a post to respond to mine right this minute even though I said I didn't think he was guilty? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Thorne Posted December 10, 2007 Share Posted December 10, 2007 I'll focus on your analysis of the 2nd paragraph, since you've already acknowledged that the 1st one was sarcasm. And the 2nd one is what matters here anyway. 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. 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 underlined part is where your whole argument fails. Here's my argument. You keep missing it somehow, so please read this - 1) No person could ever seriously make the accusation that I posted against you. 2) I posted that accusation. Therefore: 3) It was sarcasm. Do you understand now? Even if you failed to interpret it as sarcasm....even if all 3 of you failed to interpret as sarcasm....even if everyone in the game somehow failed to interpret it as sarcasm.....it still CANNOT be anything other than sarcasm. Why? Because it makes absolutely no sense as a serious argument. Saying "I don't have to think. Its there for all to see" is completely wrong. Seriously...you can't be more wrong in this case. The whole point is that you DO have to think. You have to ask yourself - 'is it possible for somebody to seriously make that argument in a game of mafia?' The answer is obviously no. Therefore, the person making the argument wasn't being serious. You lose. Now, after all of this, I do think I've figured out why you're persisting with this line of argument. I'm not a person that can be wrapped in a logical word game. To you, this might be a matter of pride. Thus, your refusal to admit that you're wrong, in spite of the clear logic that stands against you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Dayne Posted December 10, 2007 Share Posted December 10, 2007 :') you are becoming a little too easy to predict Jon... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Thorne Posted December 10, 2007 Share Posted December 10, 2007 Why don't you try to insult me into agreeing with you? Why don't you try to answer the question? Or do you instead want to admit that you are a liar? How much do you want to bet he's writing up a post to respond to mine right this minute even though I said I didn't think he was guilty? Irrelevant. Its not all about whether or not you think that I'm guilty. Did you forget that there are 2 sides to this coin? Maybe I am putting pressure on you, and am judging your reactions. Maybe....just maybe....I'm working to evaluate whether or not you are guilty... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Thorne Posted December 10, 2007 Share Posted December 10, 2007 :') you are becoming a little too easy to predict Jon... I'm more than a little alarmed by your acceptance of J-Lo's implication that I'm the only one whose guilt or innocence is at question here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Yronwood Posted December 10, 2007 Share Posted December 10, 2007 Irrelevant. Its not all about whether or not you think that I'm guilty. Did you forget that there are 2 sides to this coin? Maybe I am putting pressure on you, and am judging your reactions. Maybe....just maybe....I'm working to evaluate whether or not you are guilty... You remind me of that bad Saturday morning cartoon villain that tells the hero their master plan before dropping them into the pit full of scorpions. No really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Payne Posted December 10, 2007 Share Posted December 10, 2007 Here's my argument. You keep missing it somehow, so please read this - 1) No person could ever seriously make the accusation that I posted against you. 2) I posted that accusation. Therefore: 3) It was sarcasm. Your argument fails at #1. You are speaking for every single person who has ever played mafia and every single person who plans on playing mafia in the future. It's WIFOM at it's finest and does not help your point at all, especially since we're alted. The simple fact, which you can't seem to get through your thick skull (and it must be thick), is that you made that accusation. It doesn't matter whether you believe you were serious or not. It's what we believe. It came across serious therefore it was not sarcasm. How is this hard for you to understand? And for the record, my analysis of your first paragraph, sarcasm or not, is dead on. It's funny that you avoided it because you think it being sarcastic in nature clears the intent of the sarcasm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Dayne Posted December 10, 2007 Share Posted December 10, 2007 I'm more than a little alarmed by your acceptance of J-Lo's implication that I'm the only one whose guilt or innocence is at question here. Where did either of us mention guilt or innocence? We've both actually admitted to finding you innocent for now. Admittedly, i'm still reluctantly on the fence, but it's a little early to throw my vote back in. Putting words in other people's mouths eh? We only commented on your predictability. Even if you are perfectly innocent, such predictability makes you easily led and exploited by a FM... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Payne Posted December 10, 2007 Share Posted December 10, 2007 I'm more than a little alarmed by your acceptance of J-Lo's implication that I'm the only one whose guilt or innocence is at question here. My implication was that it's completely unnecessary for you to continually defend against something that I don't really give a fuck about, not that you were the only one who's guilt/innocence was under question. I noted your reaction and that's it. It's more than a little annoying to get into a pissing match with you, especially since all we're doing is going around in circles. I state what I thought. You state what you thought you meant. I state again what I thought. You once again state what you thought you meant. It's getting a bit repetitive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Yronwood Posted December 10, 2007 Share Posted December 10, 2007 Vote update: 1 vote Jagger (Bon Jovi) 1 vote Bon Jovi (Springsteen) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Payne Posted December 10, 2007 Share Posted December 10, 2007 Btw, half the players still haven't checked in Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Dayne Posted December 10, 2007 Share Posted December 10, 2007 If all the guilty parties are still yet to surface, they'll have a party when they do get on... Anyone else starting to worry about MJ's post and run? At first i thought he'd soon be back, but it's starting to seem like he only posted to get his name on the "posted" list? I'd like to see more MJ posts, even more than i'd like to see the silent ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Thorne Posted December 10, 2007 Share Posted December 10, 2007 Your argument fails at #1. You are speaking for every single person who has ever played mafia and every single person who plans on playing mafia in the future. It's WIFOM at it's finest and does not help your point at all, especially since we're alted. No, it doesn't fail. And this has nothing to do with WIFOM, so please stop mis-using the term. I posted what any rational person would interpret to be a ridiculous argument against you. In reality (rather than some imaginary land where we have to consider every argument that ever will be made in every mafia game ever), nobody would ever try to push it as a serious accusation. You arguing otherwise is....mind boggling. The simple fact, which you can't seem to get through your thick skull (and it must be thick), is that you made that accusation. It doesn't matter whether you believe you were serious or not. It's what we believe. It came across serious therefore it was not sarcasm. How is this hard for you to understand? I can definitely say that anybody who thought it was serious is not playing with a full deck of cards. If that's what you want to go with....well, I guess that's your choice. Better keep sharp objects out of your reach for the rest of the game. And for the record, my analysis of your first paragraph, sarcasm or not, is dead on. It's funny that you avoided it because you think it being sarcastic in nature clears the intent of the sarcasm. Will respond in a bit. I have to get some work done before I post much more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Pommingham Posted December 10, 2007 Share Posted December 10, 2007 I'd also like to see Gwen Stefani's av. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Thorne Posted December 10, 2007 Share Posted December 10, 2007 Where did either of us mention guilt or innocence? We've both actually admitted to finding you innocent for now. Jagger, seriously, if you're going to play with the big boys, then try to keep up. Not talking about my guilt or innocence with that post. Talking about J-Ho's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Dayne Posted December 10, 2007 Share Posted December 10, 2007 Jagger, seriously, if you're going to play with the big boys, then try to keep up. Not talking about my guilt or innocence with that post. Talking about J-Ho's. I'm more than a little alarmed by your acceptance of J-Lo's implication that I'm the only one whose guilt or innocence is at question here. Italics added to the second quote to make my point clearer... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.