Roll Mafia I (4/10) *GAME OVER or Day 4* SKOFFIN MVP!

[Fircoal]

Apparently it has been brought to my attention that Safari has been lynched. His role is (Doctor with 0 phDs) and it's now NIGHT TIME! You have 2 days. :3

[Fircoal]

After two LONG days the town woke up to find a dying bloody in the middle of the field. After a long time of procedures and all this doctor work the townie was able to survive. However in the midst of all of this poor TWO was ignored and was easily taken out by the mafia. TWO (Kicker) has been killed.

DAY 3 GO!

[aage]

My 39 phds would like to point out that there could be a myriad of factors as to why you have 2 more than me, perhaps I have finally decided to get off my ass from being a student and get a real job? Maybe you're older than me? I think to win this game, we should not focus on pecularities of PRs and instead actually look for scum tells. To say I am suspicious because I must have PhD 'envy' seems wrong, though playing on your theme perhaps your extra PhD has turned you into 'Doctor Evil'.?

Oh, right. So why were you voting Saf?

My 39 PHDS question the idea of a doctor without a doctorate, don't think he would be a very reliable doctor to say the least if he hasn't passed medicine.

Even though the 41 phds I wrote don't mention hypocricy as they are not related to mental or physical illness, I think you're suffering a sever case of it. Why are you voting Saf if not for his PR? In the post where you vote for him you don't even say a goddamn thing. The quote I just put there is the only explanation you're giving.

Nothing more to add. vote Nag.

Also, I'm surprised how we don't see an alignment of TWO. Does this mean he was third party?

[nagerous]

My 40PHDS would like to point out that Aage you suck as lyncher almost as much as Saxlad/Pmc in Briars

[/]

woah there my fellow 40 PHD friend, but what PHD did you get overnight? Doctor of Stealth kills? Vote Nag

[FloresDelMal]

My 39 phds would like to point out that there could be a myriad of factors as to why you have 2 more than me, perhaps I have finally decided to get off my ass from being a student and get a real job? Maybe you're older than me? I think to win this game, we should not focus on pecularities of PRs and instead actually look for scum tells. To say I am suspicious because I must have PhD 'envy' seems wrong, though playing on your theme perhaps your extra PhD has turned you into 'Doctor Evil'.?

Oh, right. So why were you voting Saf?

My 39 PHDS question the idea of a doctor without a doctorate, don't think he would be a very reliable doctor to say the least if he hasn't passed medicine.

Even though the 41 phds I wrote don't mention hypocricy as they are not related to mental or physical illness, I think you're suffering a sever case of it. Why are you voting Saf if not for his PR? In the post where you vote for him you don't even say a goddamn thing. The quote I just put there is the only explanation you're giving.

Nothing more to add. vote Nag.

Also, I'm surprised how we don't see an alignment of TWO. Does this mean he was third party?

well that was hypocrit at best FOS nag
and about two, his role was written in blue, so i think he was town

[nagerous]

woah there my fellow 40 PHD friend, but what PHD did you get overnight? Doctor of Stealth kills? Vote Nag

My 39 phds would like to highlight a previous posting fail. Maybe I truely am envious lol.

[aage]

My 40PHDS would like to point out that Aage you suck as lyncher almost as much as Saxlad/Pmc in Briars

Dude, you killed the 0 phd doc with flawed arguments. DEFEND YOURSELF, FFS.

[nagerous]

My 40PHDS would like to point out that Aage you suck as lyncher almost as much as Saxlad/Pmc in Briars

Dude, you killed the 0 phd doc with flawed arguments. DEFEND YOURSELF, FFS.

My 39 phds would like to extend a 'f*ck you' in your direction. You were accusing me of shit before he was even dead using same said hypocritical arguments that you now are accusing me of. How can a hypocrite accuse another hypocrite of being a hypocrite? Also, I did not by no means kill him, I was merely a 4th voter out of 6. Get over yourself.

[pancakemix]

Nag, you're not helping yourself by getting angry. While there's really no arguing that your response was hypocritical, I feel like there's more reason to suspect aage because he's trying to pull a fast one here. Let's take a look, shall we?

Aage seems to love this quote, doesn't he?

My 39 phds would like to point out that there could be a myriad of factors as to why you have 2 more than me, perhaps I have finally decided to get off my ass from being a student and get a real job? Maybe you're older than me? I think to win this game, we should not focus on pecularities of PRs and instead actually look for scum tells. To say I am suspicious because I must have PhD 'envy' seems wrong, though playing on your theme perhaps your extra PhD has turned you into 'Doctor Evil'.?

Oh, right. So why were you voting Saf?

My 39 PHDS question the idea of a doctor without a doctorate, don't think he would be a very reliable doctor to say the least if he hasn't passed medicine.

Even though the 41 phds I wrote don't mention hypocricy as they are not related to mental or physical illness, I think you're suffering a sever case of it. Why are you voting Saf if not for his PR? In the post where you vote for him you don't even say a goddamn thing. The quote I just put there is the only explanation you're giving.

And why not? It's pretty clear evidence against nag, which is obviously something he has his heart set on (more on that later). But what aage isn't goading over is the exchange which led to it.

Congratulations, you found the doc with 0 PhD's.

Wow, no shit

I don't think someone with 0 phds would be the one with envy. In other Fircoal games the doc always has 40. For that reason I'd be more interested in the doc with 39 phds. And guess what? He's on the wagon

unvote vote nag

My 39 phds would like to point that your vote is already on me einstein.. also by your logic should we not be concerned about the doctor with 41 phds if there is always a doctor with 40 phds *facepalm*.

Didn't bother checking where my vote was and it doesn't really matter.
Also, if there is a doctor with 41 phds, which is the case as I have 41 phds which is 2 more than you do, I agree that we shouldn't be concerned about me. I've proven to be better at medical practice than any of you so the facepalm could be kinda out of place.

My 39 phds would like to point out that there could be a myriad of factors as to why you have 2 more than me, perhaps I have finally decided to get off my ass from being a student and get a real job? Maybe you're older than me? I think to win this game, we should not focus on pecularities of PRs and instead actually look for scum tells. To say I am suspicious because I must have PhD 'envy' seems wrong, though playing on your theme perhaps your extra PhD has turned you into 'Doctor Evil'.?

There are a number of things I find interesting about this quote:

1. Aage uses safari's claim as an excuse to vote nag. Look carefully at what aage says about safari's claim post. Note how much is actually related to it (Denoted in red).

Congratulations, you found the doc with 0 PhD's.

Wow, no shit

I don't think someone with 0 phds would be the one with envy. In other Fircoal games the doc always has 40. For that reason I'd be more interested in the doc with 39 phds. And guess what? He's on the wagon

unvote vote nag

That's it? That's ALL he has to say about safari? "No shit"? Not even an "I believe you" or a "You're lying"? NOTHING? I also get the sense from that phrasing that aage DIDN'T believe safari's claim. Not that he doesn't say "I wouldn't think", he says "I don't think". That would indicate that he didn't buy it, right? And that he'd vote for safari, right? ...right?

But no. Instead, he votes for nag using one of the worst crafted reasons ever. He claims that the guy with 39 PhDs would be the one with envy because he's metagaming Fircoal based on the fact that there's always a guy with 40 PhDs. There are a lot of holes in this. Wouldn't a guy who has no PhDs be envious of people who do? Doesn't that, I don't know, make SENSE? Why should the guy with 39 be envious? If so, wouldn't the doc with 40 be the one who would be envious (which nag rightfully pointed out)? And on top of that, why isn't he concerned that the one with 40 was on the wagon, too?

2. Aage's attempt to set himself above reproach. As I noted, nag pointed out that there should be more concern about the guy with 40 PhDs. This does not seem to click with Aage, who instead uses this to reinforce his towniness. If I'm not mistaken, isn't that a standard scumtell? What really concerns me is how he says it:

Didn't bother checking where my vote was and it doesn't really matter.
Also, if there is a doctor with 41 phds, which is the case as I have 41 phds which is 2 more than you do, I agree that we shouldn't be concerned about me. I've proven to be better at medical practice than any of you so the facepalm could be kinda out of place.

Also, if there is a doctor with 41 phds, which is the case as I have 41 phds which is 2 more than you do,

if there is a doctor with 41 phds,

if

If? IF?

WHAT DO YOU MEAN IF?

"If" you are a particular role that everyone knows you are based on your PR, you do not refer to that role as an "if". It is not hypothetical. Everyone knows. The fact that the "if" is there is disturbing.

3. Aage didn't know his vote was already on nag Odd, considering he hasn't voted for anyone else this game

Lastly, I'd just like to point this out:

My 40PHDS would like to point out that Aage you suck as lyncher almost as much as Saxlad/Pmc in Briars

Dude, you killed the 0 phd doc with flawed arguments. DEFEND YOURSELF, FFS.

"You killed"? WTF? I don't see how you can accuse nag of using flawed arguments when at least 2 other people used the same argument. Nag wasn't the hammer or the instigator, either. You have no right to accuse him of "killing" safari. Pushing for a defense is not going to help either. It's just going to piss him off (as it plainly has). Incidentally, nag accuses aage of being a lyncher as his defense. That may not be too farfetched an idea. Taking into account that he tried incredibly weakly to attack nag and that he hasn't voted anyone else, I'd give the lyncher theory some credence.

I'll admit, nag is not above reproach, but given what I have just written, the evidence against aage is pretty damning. He is:

1. Almost certainly scum, likely a lyncher
2. Faking his PR. (This is based on the "if". The PR could have been fed to him or he could have come up with it himself. Note also that a good number of his posts don't even mention his PhDs.)

Vote aage

[aage]

Wow. Pancake, just wow. And lol. Before I answer all your "accusations", for I will answer them, I'd like to ask you why you are so eager to team up with Nagerous? You didn't seem to believe the "doctor with the 0 phd's", you don't believe I have 41 phd's, but oh the guy who eagerly bandwagonned with flawed arguments and 39 phd's suddenly is a saint?

Also, a pre-quote, before I answer your points:

And why not? It's pretty clear evidence against nag, which is obviously something he has his heart set on (more on that later). But what aage isn't goading over is the exchange which led to it.

Of course not. All Nagerous has said in response is "f*ck you", which is insufficient any way you look at it. Of course I will keep requoting until he posts anything related to the quote that has substance.

Now for your accusation.

1. Aage uses safari's claim as an excuse to vote nag. Look carefully at what aage says about safari's claim post. Note how much is actually related to it (Denoted in red).

That's it? That's ALL he has to say about safari? "No shit"? Not even an "I believe you" or a "You're lying"? NOTHING? I also get the sense from that phrasing that aage DIDN'T believe safari's claim. Not that he doesn't say "I wouldn't think", he says "I don't think". That would indicate that he didn't buy it, right? And that he'd vote for safari, right? ...right?

"No shit" is a phrase commenly coupled with the word "Sherlock", which yields "No shit, Sherlock". It's a sarcastic remark used to indicate the obviousness of the quote you're referencing to. In this case it seemed pretty obvious to me that Safari was the doc with 0 phd's, since he's been doing nothing but talk about them.
I think that pretty much covers your first point.

2. Aage's attempt to set himself above reproach. As I noted, nag pointed out that there should be more concern about the guy with 40 PhDs. This does not seem to click with Aage, who instead uses this to reinforce his towniness. If I'm not mistaken, isn't that a standard scumtell?

My Post Restriction forces me to brag about my phd's. Like this: Also I have 41 phd's which is a whole lot more than the rest of you, na-na-nana-na, I'm so good.
-.-'

If? IF?

WHAT DO YOU MEAN IF?

"If" you are a particular role that everyone knows you are based on your PR, you do not refer to that role as an "if". It is not hypothetical. Everyone knows. The fact that the "if" is there is disturbing.

If it disturbs you I apologise.
Nope, it's not hypothetical. Yes, everyone knows. I suggest you start reading a bit more critically. As noted before.

3. Aage didn't know his vote was already on nag Odd, considering he hasn't voted for anyone else this game

This is not my only game, and CC mafia is not my life. I'm terribly sorry if I don't have the memory to keep track of all my votes nor have the time to reread until the last vote count (which is generally very hard to find). Factually I sent in the night action for this game in the Unmafia game which gave me a confused Fircoal and, I'll admit, a huge facepalm.


Now for your summary.

I'll admit, nag is not above reproach, but given what I have just written, the evidence against aage is pretty damning. He is:

1. Almost certainly scum, likely a lyncher
2. Faking his PR. (This is based on the "if". The PR could have been fed to him or he could have come up with it himself. Note also that a good number of his posts don't even mention his PhDs.)

1. that's not an argument, that's an accusation. "The evidence against Fircoal is damning, he is almost certainly scum!" Why? Because you don't understand what sarcasm is?
2. why the hell would I fake a pr? Are you faking a pr? Was safari faking a pr? Is nag fakin a pr? Is whoever else has a pr faking a pr? Seriously, what the hell?

My 39 phds would like to extend a 'f*ck you' in your direction. You were accusing me of shit before he was even dead using same said hypocritical arguments that you now are accusing me of. How can a hypocrite accuse another hypocrite of being a hypocrite? Also, I did not by no means kill him, I was merely a 4th voter out of 6. Get over yourself.

I didn't ask for flames, I asked for a defence. I wasn't accusing you of "shit", I was accusing you of hypocricy before Safari was even dead. Please explain why the argument is hypocritical, maybe I'll grasp a bit of your tirade there if you would. Right now you're just a sore loser, sorry to say.

[aage]

EBWOP
I just realized I should help you out a bit after rereading, there's a couple of more "if"s in there that might need explanation.

Wow. Pancake, just wow. And lol. Before I answer all your "accusations", for I will answer them, I'd like to ask you why you are so eager to team up with Nagerous? You didn't seem to believe the "doctor with the 0 phd's", you don't believe I have 41 phd's, but oh the guy who eagerly bandwagonned with flawed arguments and 39 phd's suddenly is a saint?
That's not exactly sarcasm but it comes close, what I'm trying to say here is: you're not making sense, person a and b do the same as person c, but a&b are scummy and person c is not. wth?

Also, a pre-quote, before I answer your points:

And why not? It's pretty clear evidence against nag, which is obviously something he has his heart set on (more on that later). But what aage isn't goading over is the exchange which led to it.

Of course not. All Nagerous has said in response is "f*ck you", which is insufficient any way you look at it. Of course I will keep requoting until he posts anything related to the quote that has substance.

Now for your accusation.

1. Aage uses safari's claim as an excuse to vote nag. Look carefully at what aage says about safari's claim post. Note how much is actually related to it (Denoted in red).

That's it? That's ALL he has to say about safari? "No shit"? Not even an "I believe you" or a "You're lying"? NOTHING? I also get the sense from that phrasing that aage DIDN'T believe safari's claim. Not that he doesn't say "I wouldn't think", he says "I don't think". That would indicate that he didn't buy it, right? And that he'd vote for safari, right? ...right?

"No shit" is a phrase commenly coupled with the word "Sherlock", which yields "No shit, Sherlock". It's a sarcastic remark used to indicate the obviousness of the quote you're referencing to. In this case it seemed pretty obvious to me that Safari was the doc with 0 phd's, since he's been doing nothing but talk about them.
I think that pretty much covers your first point.

2. Aage's attempt to set himself above reproach. As I noted, nag pointed out that there should be more concern about the guy with 40 PhDs. This does not seem to click with Aage, who instead uses this to reinforce his towniness. If I'm not mistaken, isn't that a standard scumtell?

My Post Restriction forces me to brag about my phd's. Like this: Also I have 41 phd's which is a whole lot more than the rest of you, na-na-nana-na, I'm so good.
-.-'

If? IF?

WHAT DO YOU MEAN IF?

"If" you are a particular role that everyone knows you are based on your PR, you do not refer to that role as an "if". It is not hypothetical. Everyone knows. The fact that the "if" is there is disturbing.

If it disturbs you I apologise. obviously it disturbs you so note that as an apology
Nope, it's not hypothetical. Yes, everyone knows. I suggest you start reading a bit more critically. As noted before.

3. Aage didn't know his vote was already on nag Odd, considering he hasn't voted for anyone else this game

This is not my only game, and CC mafia is not my life. I'm terribly sorry if I don't have the memory to keep track of all my votes nor have the time to reread until the last vote count (which is generally very hard to find). Factually I sent in the night action for this game in the Unmafia game which gave me a confused Fircoal and, I'll admit, a huge facepalm.
No, I don't have the memory to keep track of all my votes nor do I have the time to reread until the last count.


Now for your summary.

I'll admit, nag is not above reproach, but given what I have just written, the evidence against aage is pretty damning. He is:

1. Almost certainly scum, likely a lyncher
2. Faking his PR. (This is based on the "if". The PR could have been fed to him or he could have come up with it himself. Note also that a good number of his posts don't even mention his PhDs.)

1. that's not an argument, that's an accusation. "The evidence against Fircoal is damning, he is almost certainly scum!" Why? Because you don't understand what sarcasm is? That was not sarcastic but factually a serious note. Saying someone is scummy doesn't get you anything since I can't defend myself against the statement "You're scummy, period".
2. why the hell would I fake a pr? Are you faking a pr? Was safari faking a pr? Is nag fakin a pr? Is whoever else has a pr faking a pr? Seriously, what the hell?

My 39 phds would like to extend a 'f*ck you' in your direction. You were accusing me of shit before he was even dead using same said hypocritical arguments that you now are accusing me of. How can a hypocrite accuse another hypocrite of being a hypocrite? Also, I did not by no means kill him, I was merely a 4th voter out of 6. Get over yourself.

I didn't ask for flames, I asked for a defence. I wasn't accusing you of "shit", I was accusing you of hypocricy before Safari was even dead. Please explain why the argument is hypocritical, maybe I'll grasp a bit of your tirade there if you would. Right now you're just a sore loser, sorry to say.

[Victor Sullivan]

My PhD in the art of fun seems to indicate the fun meter is pointing at E. Methinks we need to fix this, eh?

[pancakemix]

First of all, lulz logic in a Fircoal game.

Wow. Pancake, just wow. And lol. Before I answer all your "accusations", for I will answer them, I'd like to ask you why you are so eager to team up with Nagerous? You didn't seem to believe the "doctor with the 0 phd's", you don't believe I have 41 phd's, but oh the guy who eagerly bandwagonned with flawed arguments and 39 phd's suddenly is a saint?

I don't see what's funny. I think I've brought up some legitimate concerns. Mafia is SERIOUS BUSINESS

First of all, don't try to delegitimize my argument with quotations. Second, my argument is not based on defending nag so much as it is on the fact that I think you're scummy. Pay attention.

@ the EBWOP: It really doesn't work like that if b doesn't actually do what a&c do. Your use of your pr is scarce, as I pointed out.

Also, a pre-quote, before I answer your points:

And why not? It's pretty clear evidence against nag, which is obviously something he has his heart set on (more on that later). But what aage isn't goading over is the exchange which led to it.

Of course not. All Nagerous has said in response is "f*ck you", which is insufficient any way you look at it. Of course I will keep requoting until he posts anything related to the quote that has substance.

This is not a response to my point. I'm talking about before. You're talking about after.

Now for your accusation.

1. Aage uses safari's claim as an excuse to vote nag. Look carefully at what aage says about safari's claim post. Note how much is actually related to it (Denoted in red).

That's it? That's ALL he has to say about safari? "No shit"? Not even an "I believe you" or a "You're lying"? NOTHING? I also get the sense from that phrasing that aage DIDN'T believe safari's claim. Not that he doesn't say "I wouldn't think", he says "I don't think". That would indicate that he didn't buy it, right? And that he'd vote for safari, right? ...right?

"No shit" is a phrase commenly coupled with the word "Sherlock", which yields "No shit, Sherlock". It's a sarcastic remark used to indicate the obviousness of the quote you're referencing to. In this case it seemed pretty obvious to me that Safari was the doc with 0 phd's, since he's been doing nothing but talk about them.
I think that pretty much covers your first point.

Please note the text I quoted is not included with this post. Whether this be an attempt to skew my argument, shorten his post and have more respect for page length than I, or to make me look like I'm not talking about anything, make of the fact what you will.

No shit, Sherlock. The point wasn't that I thought the response didn't make sense, it was that you didn't say plainly what you thought. You said "No shit" and proceeded to bring up some lame-ass justification for singling out one person who was on the wagon.

What? You didn't even respond to half of it. Namely, the half that asked questions. Either you're dodging (and poorly, might I add) or somebody tl;dr'd when they shouldn't have.

2. Aage's attempt to set himself above reproach. As I noted, nag pointed out that there should be more concern about the guy with 40 PhDs. This does not seem to click with Aage, who instead uses this to reinforce his towniness. If I'm not mistaken, isn't that a standard scumtell?

My Post Restriction forces me to brag about my phd's. Like this: Also I have 41 phd's which is a whole lot more than the rest of you, na-na-nana-na, I'm so good.

Remember what I said about removing quotes? I'm leaning toward that first reason.

Now, if you read this carefully, you'll notice it has little to nothing to do with the post it is a response to. If I didn't know any better, I'd say it was just an excuse to throw in the "pr". But that's just me.

If? IF?

WHAT DO YOU MEAN IF?

"If" you are a particular role that everyone knows you are based on your PR, you do not refer to that role as an "if". It is not hypothetical. Everyone knows. The fact that the "if" is there is disturbing.

If it disturbs you I apologise.
Nope, it's not hypothetical. Yes, everyone knows. I suggest you start reading a bit more critically. As noted before.

Ok I'll admit it: I blew the "if" thing out of proportion (still worth noting, though). There's more to it than just the "if", which I will show in the quote which the noble aage saw fit to leave out.

Congratulations, you found the doc with 0 PhD's.

Wow, no shit

I don't think someone with 0 phds would be the one with envy. In other Fircoal games the doc always has 40. For that reason I'd be more interested in the doc with 39 phds. And guess what? He's on the wagon

unvote vote nag

My 39 phds would like to point that your vote is already on me einstein.. also by your logic should we not be concerned about the doctor with 41 phds if there is always a doctor with 40 phds *facepalm*.

Didn't bother checking where my vote was and it doesn't really matter.
Also, if there is a doctor with 41 phds, which is the case as I have 41 phds which is 2 more than you do, I agree that we shouldn't be concerned about me. I've proven to be better at medical practice than any of you so the facepalm could be kinda out of place.

This quote cam be summed up like this:

Safari: I'm Town.
aage: Vote Nag.
Nag: That doesn't make sense.
aage: YOU'RE RIGHT NAG I'M TOWN.

Do you see what I'm getting at? Aage seems REALLY desperate to make himself look pro-town, so much that he might be trying too hard.

And I find it hilarious that YOU'RE telling ME to read critically. The problem is not on my end, methinks, if said problem even exists.

3. Aage didn't know his vote was already on nag Odd, considering he hasn't voted for anyone else this game

This is not my only game, and CC mafia is not my life. I'm terribly sorry if I don't have the memory to keep track of all my votes nor have the time to reread until the last vote count (which is generally very hard to find). Factually I sent in the night action for this game in the Unmafia game which gave me a confused Fircoal and, I'll admit, a huge facepalm.

I'm terribly sorry if you cant be bothered to scroll up on the page and see either of the 2 (yes, 2) vote counts on that page. I would hate for your social life to suffer for it. Let my pity for absolve you of not responding to my point. Again.

Now for your summary.

I'll admit, nag is not above reproach, but given what I have just written, the evidence against aage is pretty damning. He is:

1. Almost certainly scum, likely a lyncher
2. Faking his PR. (This is based on the "if". The PR could have been fed to him or he could have come up with it himself. Note also that a good number of his posts don't even mention his PhDs.)

1. that's not an argument, that's an accusation. "The evidence against Fircoal is damning, he is almost certainly scum!" Why? Because you don't understand what sarcasm is?
2. why the hell would I fake a pr? Are you faking a pr? Was safari faking a pr? Is nag fakin a pr? Is whoever else has a pr faking a pr? Seriously, what the hell?

1. No shit it's an accusation (See? I know what that means!). You got a response? And I should hope I know what sarcasm is, because my posts are dripping with it.

And don't tell me I didn't show why you're scummy. It's all there in plain English. If you'd like me to sum it up for you, here it is:

a. You used a lame reason (not) based on a roleclaim from one player to implicate nag.
b. He is the only person you have voted for this game.
c. You've attacked nag for using an argument and ignored the fact that the same justification was used by other people.
d. You're pushing incredibly hard on him for some really minor points
e. You've completely dodged and skewed my arguments to make it seem like I don't know what I'm talking about.
f. You've insulted my intelligence.
g. You've made scant use of your PR

Should I keep going?

2. Um... maybe to blend in? Trust me, I know what faking a pr is. I played in a game where I was scum and I had to write poetry just to keep my cover. Have you ever written a villanelle? Have you ever READ a villanelle? Trust me, they're lame.

So basically all I'm getting is that you tl;dr'd my post and left this "response". The fact that you try to pass it like I have comprehension issues does you no favors. My 1 PhD would like it very much if you read this post carefully and came back with a real response this time.

My PhD in the art of fun seems to indicate the fun meter is pointing at E. Methinks we need to fix this, eh?

I'm having fun. I MISSED doing this, believe it or not. What do YOU do for fun?

[Fircoal]

2. Um... maybe to blend in? Trust me, I know what faking a pr is. I played in a game where I was scum and I had to write poetry just to keep my cover. Have you ever written a villanelle? Have you ever READ a villanelle? Trust me, they're lame.

LOLZEL! BAD POETS MAFIA! Epic times

My PhD in the art of fun seems to indicate the fun meter is pointing at E. Methinks we need to fix this, eh?

I'm having fun. I MISSED doing this, believe it or not. What do YOU do for fun?

and I missed reading posts like this. <3

[aage]

Safari: I'm Town.
aage: Vote Nag.
Nag: That doesn't make sense.
aage: YOU'RE RIGHT NAG I'M TOWN.

Do you see what I'm getting at? Aage seems REALLY desperate to make himself look pro-town, so much that he might be trying too hard.

Talking about pulling stuff out of context

my 39 phds say ebwop unvote vote safari

My prestigious 41 phd's say wth?

Wow really guys? vote out the ignorant one with no PhD's first? I personally think we should go after someone with no PR first. I'm pretty sure a couple people don't have them.

*L-2*

So claim I suppose. Congratulations, you found the doc with 0 PhD's. Aren't you all smarter than me anyways? Watch me get killed by the well educated mafia tonight.

I think the fact you'd be a doc without a phd makes me think you might have phd envy that could push you to kill others with phds. Say what you really feel, you can talk to us.
Vote Saf

My 39 PHDS question the idea of a doctor without a doctorate, don't think he would be a very reliable doctor to say the least if he hasn't passed medicine.

*quote safari claim*
Wow, no shit

I don't think someone with 0 phds would be the one with envy. In other Fircoal games the doc always has 40. For that reason I'd be more interested in the doc with 39 phds. And guess what? He's on the wagon

unvote vote nag

My 39 phds would like to point that your vote is already on me einstein.. also by your logic should we not be concerned about the doctor with 41 phds if there is always a doctor with 40 phds *facepalm*.

Didn't bother checking where my vote was and it doesn't really matter.
Also, if there is a doctor with 41 phds, which is the case as I have 41 phds which is 2 more than you do, I agree that we shouldn't be concerned about me. I've proven to be better at medical practice than any of you so the facepalm could be kinda out of place.

I don't know what you're thinking but I think the last quote from Nag is half an accusation, and the last quote from me just is a defence. I don't know how you managed to translate that into

aage: Vote Nag.
Nag: That doesn't make sense.
aage: YOU'RE RIGHT NAG I'M TOWN.

but somehow you did. Seriously, even with this obviousness I think this overzealous defence from you for nag shows pretty clear you two are related in some way.

I don't see what's funny. I think I've brought up some legitimate concerns. Mafia is SERIOUS BUSINESS

First of all, don't try to delegitimize my argument with quotations. Second, my argument is not based on defending nag so much as it is on the fact that I think you're scummy. Pay attention.

@ the EBWOP: It really doesn't work like that if b doesn't actually do what a&c do. Your use of your pr is scarce, as I pointed out.

I don't think so. I think I also pointed that out in the previous post. You're misinterpreting quotes and blaming me for it.

You mean the "" ""? I think I answered all the points you made in a very serious manner. Also I am paying attention, and I'm seeing that you started to rant all over me ever since I called out Nag for hypocricy. Wouldn't you find that strange?

The use if my pr is scarce, perhaps, since I really can't be bothered to put a reference in posts that contain 1 line or less. Reading through the thread I notice I'm not the only one

This is not a response to my point. I'm talking about before. You're talking about after.

Before or after what? The night? I don't think the night is very important in this case since I don't investigate. I'm a doctor "faking a pr", remember? (can you see now why I'm using the "" ""?)

Please note the text I quoted is not included with this post. Whether this be an attempt to skew my argument, shorten his post and have more respect for page length than I, or to make me look like I'm not talking about anything, make of the fact what you will.

No shit, Sherlock. The point wasn't that I thought the response didn't make sense, it was that you didn't say plainly what you thought. You said "No shit" and proceeded to bring up some lame-ass justification for singling out one person who was on the wagon.

What? You didn't even respond to half of it. Namely, the half that asked questions. Either you're dodging (and poorly, might I add) or somebody tl;dr'd when they shouldn't have.

I do this a lot. It's called "slimming down the size of your posts so that you and your fellow players can actually read them".

Yes, I said "no shit" and continued on stuff that mattered. I already knew Saf was a doc with 0 phd's. Everyone probably knew. I don't know why you believe I should have paid so much attention to it. As for why I'm choosing Nag out of the bunch, a) he should know better, b) he just said "vote saf" and ebwop'ed his PR into it, and 3) he was the third on the actual wagon. /'s vote had been on safari for pages. The other votes were yours, having a "joking" nature saying

We COULD unvote vote safari and get things moving, if you don't mind...

and a Victor Sullivan who is acting like an idiot in every game he plays. I believe it really isn't that strange to pick out Nagerous.

Your point consisted of "Aage uses safari's claim as an excuse to vote nag" and your argument is that a) I "don't respond to the claim" which I did as I pointed out but you seemingly still don't manage to believe, and b) that I'm choosing Nag over Victor and you. Yes, I didn't address why I voted Nag, of all people, but I think the fact that I believed Safari's claim to be honest still covers that point. I don't like spelling things out for people, but here it is: Safari gets bandwagoned, Nagerous jumps on it for no reason what-so-e-ver, I call him out for it, and suddenly I am the scumster? What the hell.

I like the colors by the way, been a while since I discussed that way

[quote="pmc]Remember what I said about removing quotes? I'm leaning toward that first reason.

Now, if you read this carefully, you'll notice it has little to nothing to do with the post it is a response to. If I didn't know any better, I'd say it was just an excuse to throw in the "pr". But that's just me.[/quote]
Well I hope you do know better now.

[quote]Ok I'll admit it: I blew the "if" thing out of proportion (still worth noting, though). There's more to it than just the "if", which I will show in the quote which the noble aage saw fit to leave out.[/quote]
Noble? lmao

[quote]I'm terribly sorry if you cant be bothered to scroll up on the page and see either of the 2 (yes, 2) vote counts on that page. I would hate for your social life to suffer for it. Let my pity for absolve you of not responding to my point. Again.[/quote]
Not on that page, bro. Read again. Page 6. I love the "quick reply" button if I'm not quoting anything big.

[quote]a. You used a lame reason (not) based on a roleclaim from one player to implicate nag.
b. He is the only person you have voted for this game.
c. You've attacked nag for using an argument and ignored the fact that the same justification was used by other people.
d. You're pushing incredibly hard on him for some really minor points
e. You've completely dodged and skewed my arguments to make it seem like I don't know what I'm talking about.
f. You've insulted my intelligence.
g. You've made scant use of your PR[/quote]
a. covered
b. yes, but since saf was quicklynched and we're on page fucking 8, I don't see why that's odd
c. the "other people" you're talking about are you and Victor. You were the "second vote" if we're counting /, and not looking too serious, and nor is Victor. There was absolutely no reason why Nag would jump on that wagon, yet he did. Yes, I find that scummy.
d. I can call anything minor points but I don't think this discussion is minor.
e. I suppose you mean I only quoted your words, if it disturbs you I'm sorry but that's just the way I quote. I hate having to scroll down to read a single line of text, and I assume I'm not the only one.
f. if you took it personal I suggest you stop doing it and I apologise.
g. Give me at least 3 posts where I don't use my pr or EBWOP it into the post later.

Your turn

[/]

Just a little thought I have formed using my 40 PHDs, I am willing to assume the PHD thing was a mistake nagerous, however just to cover all possible angles and be on the safe side I would like to conduct a certain test. It is probably a coincidence, put the two other posts you have made today have quoted the words "40 PHDs".

just to be absolutely certain you have the same number of PHDs today, could you please make a post about the number of PHDs you have with no mention to any other number and not quoting this post?
I'm going to unvote

[pancakemix]

Safari: I'm Town.
aage: Vote Nag.
Nag: That doesn't make sense.
aage: YOU'RE RIGHT NAG I'M TOWN.

Do you see what I'm getting at? Aage seems REALLY desperate to make himself look pro-town, so much that he might be trying too hard.

Talking about pulling stuff out of context

my 39 phds say ebwop unvote vote safari

My prestigious 41 phd's say wth?

Wow really guys? vote out the ignorant one with no PhD's first? I personally think we should go after someone with no PR first. I'm pretty sure a couple people don't have them.

*L-2*

So claim I suppose. Congratulations, you found the doc with 0 PhD's. Aren't you all smarter than me anyways? Watch me get killed by the well educated mafia tonight.

I think the fact you'd be a doc without a phd makes me think you might have phd envy that could push you to kill others with phds. Say what you really feel, you can talk to us.
Vote Saf

My 39 PHDS question the idea of a doctor without a doctorate, don't think he would be a very reliable doctor to say the least if he hasn't passed medicine.

*quote safari claim*
Wow, no shit

I don't think someone with 0 phds would be the one with envy. In other Fircoal games the doc always has 40. For that reason I'd be more interested in the doc with 39 phds. And guess what? He's on the wagon

unvote vote nag

My 39 phds would like to point that your vote is already on me einstein.. also by your logic should we not be concerned about the doctor with 41 phds if there is always a doctor with 40 phds *facepalm*.

Didn't bother checking where my vote was and it doesn't really matter.
Also, if there is a doctor with 41 phds, which is the case as I have 41 phds which is 2 more than you do, I agree that we shouldn't be concerned about me. I've proven to be better at medical practice than any of you so the facepalm could be kinda out of place.

I don't know what you're thinking but I think the last quote from Nag is half an accusation, and the last quote from me just is a defence. I don't know how you managed to translate that into

aage: Vote Nag.
Nag: That doesn't make sense.
aage: YOU'RE RIGHT NAG I'M TOWN.

but somehow you did. Seriously, even with this obviousness I think this overzealous defence from you for nag shows pretty clear you two are related in some way.

Again, you're not posting in response to what that was intended to show, which was you jumping to accept nag's sarcastic note about your PR. It doesn't change the fact that your reason for voting doesn't even line up in context.

You also seem to think I'm defending nag. I'm not. I just think you're a bigger concern. I said this before. Maybe if you would read my argument and include my quotes (read: not take my argument out of context) we'd all be better off.

I don't see what's funny. I think I've brought up some legitimate concerns. Mafia is SERIOUS BUSINESS

First of all, don't try to delegitimize my argument with quotations. Second, my argument is not based on defending nag so much as it is on the fact that I think you're scummy. Pay attention.

@ the EBWOP: It really doesn't work like that if b doesn't actually do what a&c do. Your use of your pr is scarce, as I pointed out.

I don't think so. I think I also pointed that out in the previous post. You're misinterpreting quotes and blaming me for it.

You mean the "" ""? I think I answered all the points you made in a very serious manner. Also I am paying attention, and I'm seeing that you started to rant all over me ever since I called out Nag for hypocricy. Wouldn't you find that strange?

The use if my pr is scarce, perhaps, since I really can't be bothered to put a reference in posts that contain 1 line or less. Reading through the thread I notice I'm not the only one

I'd buy that if you'd answer half of them.

Maybe, but you act like I'm a fly around your head. I don't like just being brushed aside

If you're implying that I have forgotten at some point (and I know I have):

a. I don't forget about my 1 PhD nearly every single post
b. Length of post is not a concern. Even if you just throw in "I have 41 PhDs" it counts.
c. I use my sig to cover my ass. Chu didn't say WHERE it had to be in my post.

This is not a response to my point. I'm talking about before. You're talking about after.

Before or after what? The night? I don't think the night is very important in this case since I don't investigate. I'm a doctor "faking a pr", remember? (can you see now why I'm using the "" ""?)

Before/After the quote in question. I said "He keeps using this quote but won't talk about what led to it" and then you said "And I'm going to keep quoting it!". Better?

Please note the text I quoted is not included with this post. Whether this be an attempt to skew my argument, shorten his post and have more respect for page length than I, or to make me look like I'm not talking about anything, make of the fact what you will.

No shit, Sherlock. The point wasn't that I thought the response didn't make sense, it was that you didn't say plainly what you thought. You said "No shit" and proceeded to bring up some lame-ass justification for singling out one person who was on the wagon.

What? You didn't even respond to half of it. Namely, the half that asked questions. Either you're dodging (and poorly, might I add) or somebody tl;dr'd when they shouldn't have.

I do this a lot. It's called "slimming down the size of your posts so that you and your fellow players can actually read them".

Yes, I said "no shit" and continued on stuff that mattered. I already knew Saf was a doc with 0 phd's. Everyone probably knew. I don't know why you believe I should have paid so much attention to it. As for why I'm choosing Nag out of the bunch, a) he should know better, b) he just said "vote saf" and ebwop'ed his PR into it, and 3) he was the third on the actual wagon. /'s vote had been on safari for pages. The other votes were yours, having a "joking" nature saying

We COULD unvote vote safari and get things moving, if you don't mind...

and a Victor Sullivan who is acting like an idiot in every game he plays. I believe it really isn't that strange to pick out Nagerous.

Your point consisted of "Aage uses safari's claim as an excuse to vote nag" and your argument is that a) I "don't respond to the claim" which I did as I pointed out but you seemingly still don't manage to believe, and b) that I'm choosing Nag over Victor and you. Yes, I didn't address why I voted Nag, of all people, but I think the fact that I believed Safari's claim to be honest still covers that point. I don't like spelling things out for people, but here it is: Safari gets bandwagoned, Nagerous jumps on it for no reason what-so-e-ver, I call him out for it, and suddenly I am the scumster? What the hell.

I like the colors by the way, been a while since I discussed that way

Length does not cause illegibility. Let the record show that aage has admitted to skimming. (Although to be fair, I tend to be lengthy, if you hadn't noticed...)

-Well, I certainly wasn't telling you to write a post as long as mine about it.
-Well if you want a plausible explanation for nag's vote, I can give you one. It is likely he put his vote on safari because he wanted to find out about safari's role/put pressure on him to accomplish some real play and left it there to get day 1 over with. Basically, he was saying "Get on with it". That's just a theory. I'm not in his head. What I do know is that if that was his intent, it worked.
-Standard reckoning (at least when I stared playing, which was years ago) was that "wagon" proper didn't start until the third vote, which would be Victor. I'll respond to your comment about my post with this: You act like I set out to have him lynched with torch and pitchfork. Victor's involvement has been relatively minor and I wouldn't know about his activity in other games. And Nag did justify his vote on safari afterward. You even quoted it in this post
-Wait, a-b-3?

Then you wouldn't mind answering these questions:

But no. Instead, he votes for nag using one of the worst crafted reasons ever. He claims that the guy with 39 PhDs would be the one with envy because he's metagaming Fircoal based on the fact that there's always a guy with 40 PhDs. There are a lot of holes in this. Wouldn't a guy who has no PhDs be envious of people who do? Doesn't that, I don't know, make SENSE? Why should the guy with 39 be envious? If so, wouldn't the doc with 40 be the one who would be envious (which nag rightfully pointed out)? And on top of that, why isn't he concerned that the one with 40 was on the wagon, too?

You've answered the last one, I'll grant you that. But these were completely overlooked and I'd like some answers

: It's sorta my trademark.

Remember what I said about removing quotes? I'm leaning toward that first reason.

Now, if you read this carefully, you'll notice it has little to nothing to do with the post it is a response to. If I didn't know any better, I'd say it was just an excuse to throw in the "pr". But that's just me.

Well I hope you do know better now.

Missing something?

I'm terribly sorry if you cant be bothered to scroll up on the page and see either of the 2 (yes, 2) vote counts on that page. I would hate for your social life to suffer for it. Let my pity for absolve you of not responding to my point. Again.

Not on that page, bro. Read again. Page 6. I love the "quick reply" button if I'm not quoting anything big.

Are we looking at the same Page 6?

a. You used a lame reason (not) based on a roleclaim from one player to implicate nag.
b. He is the only person you have voted for this game.
c. You've attacked nag for using an argument and ignored the fact that the same justification was used by other people.
d. You're pushing incredibly hard on him for some really minor points
e. You've completely dodged and skewed my arguments to make it seem like I don't know what I'm talking about.
f. You've insulted my intelligence.
g. You've made scant use of your PR

a. covered
b. yes, but since saf was quicklynched and we're on page fucking 8, I don't see why that's odd
c. the "other people" you're talking about are you and Victor. You were the "second vote" if we're counting /, and not looking too serious, and nor is Victor. There was absolutely no reason why Nag would jump on that wagon, yet he did. Yes, I find that scummy.
d. I can call anything minor points but I don't think this discussion is minor.
e. I suppose you mean I only quoted your words, if it disturbs you I'm sorry but that's just the way I quote. I hate having to scroll down to read a single line of text, and I assume I'm not the only one.
f. if you took it personal I suggest you stop doing it and I apologise.
g. Give me at least 3 posts where I don't use my pr or EBWOP it into the post later.

Your turn

a. Responded to.
b. It may be a little thing, but sometimes those are what count.
c. "Other people" actually refers to Flores, who stated so explicitly as her reason for voting thusly (and isn't a people, after further review)
d. Blah. I'm up too late. I'll come back to this.
e. If you actually try to discern an argument from what you have quoted, my argument comes across incomplete. Not having the whole post makes your argument seem incomplete, too.
f. Apology accepted, poophead.
g.

1.

yep, seems pretty much dead, but with xmas approaching i think is kinda expected

Your avatar changed again!! The DN one was much better...

2.

Whahaha, screw you all. My 41 PhD's are far better, if not only for their sheer majority, but also for the amount of intelligence shown in each of them! ><

Oh, and ebwop that also in that previous post. Nag made me realise I had a pr too xD

Still, I find it pretty weird that there are three people with PhD's. And possibly 4, since someone mentioned having 1. Odd.

You haven't played a Fircoal game before, have you?

I have and am in 2 at the moment, but even for fircoal... 4 docs is just too much.

(basing that only on the post itself, not the quoted text)

3. The one I just responded to, but this post is long enough without quoting that whole thing again.

[nagerous]

/ I have 39 PHDS

[aage]

Before you read on, note that I'm responding to the summary first, pmc. Also I will not quote very single part of your post. Sentences such as "I'd buy that if you'd answer half of them' I will ignore for the time being. Please let me know if you want me to elaborate on that.

a. Responded to.
b. It may be a little thing, but sometimes those are what count.
c. "Other people" actually refers to Flores, who stated so explicitly as her reason for voting thusly (and isn't a people, after further review)
d. Blah. I'm up too late. I'll come back to this.
e. If you actually try to discern an argument from what you have quoted, my argument comes across incomplete. Not having the whole post makes your argument seem incomplete, too.
f. Apology accepted, poophead.
g. *quotes*

a. in a minute
b. Wait, so you were accusing me of using minor points?
c. Flores voted after nag did. Also she did so after I revoted Nag.
d. see b.
e. Read your own post again and try to imagine a 6-story quote piramid above each line of text. I would call that illegible. (this also answers the green discussion)
f. ~
g. funny how all the three quotes where I don't use the pr are one liners. As on the third, idk if quoting myself counts but there's a bunch of references at the top.


Now...

If you're implying that I have forgotten at some point (and I know I have):

a. I don't forget about my 1 PhD nearly every single post
b. Length of post is not a concern. Even if you just throw in "I have 41 PhDs" it counts.
c. I use my sig to cover my ass. Chu didn't say WHERE it had to be in my post.

a. Possibly true, I'll believe you. But I wasn't implying that you had. Nag, /, probably someone else as well, has been saying "xxx" and then "ebwop my 39 phds say xxx". This is what I referred to.
b. True. As I mentioned I'm playing several games and every now and then I just have a loose remark that's got nothing to do with my role. In those cases, yes, I forget my pr.
c. I saw. Sig technically isn't part of your post but if Chu is happy with it I suppose good for you.

Before/After the quote in question. I said "He keeps using this quote but won't talk about what led to it" and then you said "And I'm going to keep quoting it!". Better?

So what did it lead to? Nag only answered my quote with something like "go f*ck yourself, you noobish lyncher". I don't call that a defense, so I requoted and asked again.

-Well, I certainly wasn't telling you to write a post as long as mine about it.

-Well if you want a plausible explanation for nag's vote, I can give you one. It is likely he put his vote on safari because he wanted to find out about safari's role/put pressure on him to accomplish some real play and left it there to get day 1 over with. Basically, he was saying "Get on with it". That's just a theory. I'm not in his head. What I do know is that if that was his intent, it worked.

-Standard reckoning (at least when I stared playing, which was years ago) was that "wagon" proper didn't start until the third vote, which would be Victor. I'll respond to your comment about my post with this: You act like I set out to have him lynched with torch and pitchfork. Victor's involvement has been relatively minor and I wouldn't know about his activity in other games. And Nag did justify his vote on safari afterward. You even quoted it in this post

-Wait, a-b-3?

- ~

- He wasn't saying anything. Except when "vote safari" counts as a very well thought through argument.

- I voted him for hypocricy first, then Nag insults me and now you jump all over me. Reread the argument, I only started grabbing my pitchfork and torch once Nag accused me of lyncher and you're his new sidekick.

- I know right? lol

Then you wouldn't mind answering these questions:

But no. Instead, he votes for nag using one of the worst crafted reasons ever. He claims that the guy with 39 PhDs would be the one with envy because he's metagaming Fircoal based on the fact that there's always a guy with 40 PhDs. There are a lot of holes in this. Wouldn't a guy who has no PhDs be envious of people who do? Doesn't that, I don't know, make SENSE? Why should the guy with 39 be envious? If so, wouldn't the doc with 40 be the one who would be envious (which nag rightfully pointed out)? And on top of that, why isn't he concerned that the one with 40 was on the wagon, too?

You've answered the last one, I'll grant you that. But these were completely overlooked and I'd like some answers

Let's see.
"But no. Instead, he votes for nag using one of the worst crafted reasons ever. He claims that the guy with 39 PhDs would be the one with envy because he's metagaming Fircoal based on the fact that there's always a guy with 40 PhDs."
This is true. Nothing more to add. There indeed always is a guy with 40 phd's. As for the "worst crafted reasons ever", read the post from ga7 on page 6 and then fit in the envy argument.

"There are a lot of holes in this. Wouldn't a guy who has no PhDs be envious of people who do?"
Possible. But not definitive. As you've seen during the end-of-day scene.

"Doesn't that, I don't know, make SENSE?"
It does make sense, but since about half of all players in here have a PHD PR it doesn't matter.

"Why should the guy with 39 be envious?"
Because the 40 phd doctor, who is always the "regular" doctor in Fir's games, has one phd more than the 39 phd doctor. He has ONE more phd than the 39 phd doc. Idk about you but if I had 39 phd's and all the cool kids had 40 I'd be pretty jealous.

"If so, wouldn't the doc with 40 be the one who would be envious (which nag rightfully pointed out)? "
No he wouldn't. He has exactly the right amount of phd's. Who would he be envious about? Me? but I was faking my pr, remember

"And on top of that, why isn't he concerned that the one with 40 was on the wagon, too?"
Because that guy had voted Saf a very long time ago and just didn't unvote. That's not the same as "being on the wagon".

Missing something?

Explanation would be nice.

Are we looking at the same Page 6?

Still only 1 vote count. But there is one, I grant you that. I guess I was ignorant, punish me for it if you like.

Also (it'd really be very stupid to forget this now) I have 41 phd's

[aage]

Also please read the other fircoal game. I was the doc with 40 phd's in there, and just got killed. That's partially why I believe 40 to be the "cool kids' number", but obviously I couldn't state here that I was the 40 phd guy in another chu game

[ga7]

Man, nothing like an old school PCM case with colours. And with Aage it can only be a battle of stubbornness!
Frankly I'm tempted to go with the most likely option that Aage is Nag's lyncher. Then again Aage is sometimes like a pittbull that cannot ever let go of the arm he bites, so I'm not sure. Perhaps it would help if you talked to us more about your feelings, to learn to let go
I'm gonna Vote Victor for now even though it could as well be bereux, for submarining like crazy.

[Victor Sullivan]

Man, nothing like an old school PCM case with colours. And with Aage it can only be a battle of stubbornness!
Frankly I'm tempted to go with the most likely option that Aage is Nag's lyncher. Then again Aage is sometimes like a pittbull that cannot ever let go of the arm he bites, so I'm not sure. Perhaps it would help if you talked to us more about your feelings, to learn to let go
I'm gonna Vote Victor for now even though it could as well be bereux, for submarining like crazy.

Sir, I must inform you Ive had the flu for the past 4 days... I need to submit some paperwork to the Bureau of Bureaucracy before I can submit my vote plea to the Society of Fundamental Foundations and Legitimacies in which case I would receive a verification card that I need verified by the Bureau of Bureaucracy so I can get the final paperwork back to submit to the SOFFAL so I can get my vote approved before I can actually vote in this thread.

[ga7]

Have you got a 27B-6 form?
Ugh hadn't noticed this just died...
Unvote Vote Aage I blame you for it! (even though Pcm is to blame also )

[FloresDelMal]

Have you got a 27B-6 form?
Ugh hadn't noticed this just died...
Unvote Vote Aage I blame you for it! (even though Pcm is to blame also )

QFT even thought my single PHd is not in law, i think that Pcm should accept his half of responsibility on the death of this thread, so unvote vote Pcm the colorful quote fest made my eyes hurt