Mafia Game: Monster Mash (Hosted by Sin and What)

[Assassin]

Assassin, I got where he was coming from, or at least thought I did, which is why I mentioned he made an error in his semantics. What he said he's been saying WOULD be true in that case. However, he says he made no error, which can only mean that wasn't his meaning. Mostly, he's an ignorant child who is bad at English, and I get off pissing people like him off

LOL ahh. Touche.

[DJ_MikeyRevile]

Mikey, I'll ask simply. Did you, or did you not mean this "The thing is, if someone admots to being ok with lynching a vt, that means they trust there vt." Was this what you meant, or was there an error in your wording?

As for the STILL unanswered question that I asked, "I'm now just curious what made you bring that up?" I know you said you have problems with literacy, but that special mark at the end of the sentence is a "Question Mark". It signifies a question. The reason I asked it, and would still like an answer is that there are people voting Minj, but since we still don't have a claim, that's the thing to do. No one that I have noticed has even suggested others to vote for him, so no one ISN'T trying to use the day to get information. Also, related to that, when did I ever push the day?

Although it has nothing to do with the game, since you decided to beat a dead horse, I have a question for you. If I didn't like your setup, why would I want to play it again?

Assassin, I got where he was coming from, or at least thought I did, which is why I mentioned he made an error in his semantics. What he said he's been saying WOULD be true in that case. However, he says he made no error, which can only mean that wasn't his meaning. Mostly, he's an ignorant child who is bad at English, and I get off pissing people like him off

My reply was passes fucking quote.. you are stupid, really.

Yes what I saying is, if I sit here and reiterate that someone is vt, it is because I do not fos them, I am confident in that persons claim. You are trying to tell me im lying because you have an opposing opinion on what it means to not find someone suspect and how it corralates to trust

News flash dick weed, your opinions on trivial matters... are not fact.

- - - Updated - - -

Stop ignoring my fucking posta. I just had to explain a second time that I answered your only question.

[Blackmage]

Scribble, I'm totally lost as to what you're suggesting. Isn't what you're saying there only true if he's really a VT?

[SCRIBBLE]

Yes he could be lying but I was telling him this in hopes the other VTs would not follow suit.

[DJ_MikeyRevile]

As for the rest of you, dont buy into this baseless attack. When I get home from work, ill do a post break down and explain my thoughts regarding this ridiculous attack.

For now ill say... mafia cant nk, the only way for them to win is lynch werewolfs and lead lynches.

[SCRIBBLE]

For now ill say... mafia cant nk, the only way for them to win is lynch werewolfs and lead lynches.

Yes they most certainly can nk. Go read the role description in the sign up thread.

- - - Updated - - -

Belay my last, I have it backwards.

[Blackmage]

You were trying to reply to my post by quoting someone else, using their entire quote instead of just the relevant portions, not changing who is was by or talking to. A quote, that was talking to you, and you hadn't responded to. Also, it claims that there was nothing to respond to, and yet Cyber had posted and you have yet to respond. This means in order for that to have been your reply, you would have had to be lying, yet again! How ever could I have missed this?

Oh, and your post: "I answered your question with passes quote you fucking moron." has a double meaning. You should have said: "I answered your question by using pass's quote." or "Passes quote was my response" or any one of the other options. What you said can also be read "I answered your question while answering Pass's quote". Which, let's examine, you posted his quote, a response, and then something that was obviously to me. A quote, a response, and another response.

Could someone translate this for me? "Yes what I saying is, if I sit here and reiterate that someone is vt, it is because I do not fos them, I am confident in that persons claim." I think I understand that he's saying that if he keeps saying someone is something, he truly believes that claim. What is talking about with the fos part?

My main arguments have nothing to do with my opinions. Either A: you made an error or B: you are committing the false-causality fallacy. This is not opinion, this is how language works. A proper version of that post would have been: If I(Mikey) admit to being ok with lynching a vt, that means I(Mikey) trusts the lynchee is a vt. You said "someone" which means you are telling us what an unidentified person believes. You give an action that someone specifically other than yourself does, and then proceed to explain what that means. You have left no wiggle room, used no conditionals. The sentence you used is an opinion portrayed as a fact.

To clarify, I didn't mean to ignore your posts. I just accidentally attributed you with a little too much intelligence. Don't worry, I won't make that same mistake again this game. It has been mentioned to me that a lie requires knowing what you say is untrue. If the case is you just don't know what you are saying, I'm sorry for saying that you're lying.

Oh, and ending your post saying what I said in the first actual post of the game. Thanks for the nod.

Scribble: That's why I said to think of them as scum 3rd party. The naming scheme on this game may be confusing to those who don't play variants often.

[DJ_MikeyRevile]

You were trying to reply to my post by quoting someone else, using their entire quote instead of just the relevant portions, not changing who is was by or talking to. A quote, that was talking to you, and you hadn't responded to. Also, it claims that there was nothing to respond to, and yet Cyber had posted and you have yet to respond. This means in order for that to have been your reply, you would have had to be lying, yet again! How ever could I have missed this?

Oh, and your post: "I answered your question with passes quote you fucking moron." has a double meaning. You should have said: "I answered your question by using pass's quote." or "Passes quote was my response" or any one of the other options. What you said can also be read "I answered your question while answering Pass's quote". Which, let's examine, you posted his quote, a response, and then something that was obviously to me. A quote, a response, and another response.

Could someone translate this for me? "Yes what I saying is, if I sit here and reiterate that someone is vt, it is because I do not fos them, I am confident in that persons claim." I think I understand that he's saying that if he keeps saying someone is something, he truly believes that claim. What is talking about with the fos part?

My main arguments have nothing to do with my opinions. Either A: you made an error or B: you are committing the false-causality fallacy. This is not opinion, this is how language works. A proper version of that post would have been: If I(Mikey) admit to being ok with lynching a vt, that means I(Mikey) trusts the lynchee is a vt. You said "someone" which means you are telling us what an unidentified person believes. You give an action that someone specifically other than yourself does, and then proceed to explain what that means. You have left no wiggle room, used no conditionals. The sentence you used is an opinion portrayed as a fact.

To clarify, I didn't mean to ignore your posts. I just accidentally attributed you with a little too much intelligence. Don't worry, I won't make that same mistake again this game. It has been mentioned to me that a lie requires knowing what you say is untrue. If the case is you just don't know what you are saying, I'm sorry for saying that you're lying.

Oh, and ending your post saying what I said in the first actual post of the game. Thanks for the nod.

Scribble: That's why I said to think of them as scum 3rd party. The naming scheme on this game may be confusing to those who don't play variants often.

you are deranged sir. Simply deranged.

This is you ----> "You posted at approximately 1:43 and 23 seconds in the PM, then they posted exactly 3 min later on the 23rd second. You did not reply for another hour! so you are a liar! HA!"

I am not re typing every single post i have made because you fail to understand them. Almost home

- - - Updated - - -

it was rhetoric....

[Blackmage]

you are deranged sir. Simply deranged.

This is you ----> "You posted at approximately 1:43 and 23 seconds in the PM, then they posted exactly 3 min later on the 23rd second. You did not reply for another hour! so you are a liar! HA!"

I am not re typing every single post i have made because you fail to understand them. Almost home

- - - Updated - - -

it was rhetoric....

Nothing about my derangement is simple. I take offense to that sir.

Also, it wouldn't be approximate. If I couldn't find the seconds, I wouldn't add them, but I'd be exact. Second, I'd only call you a liar if you said you'd respond within, say, 50 minutes of them posting. If you correct those two problems, you be exactly correct!

[minjae]

In a sense, we are all deranged.

Completely and utterly deranged.