jgordon1111 wrote:Vote gregg For the badly put together post and failing logic behind it. Fos Sam G for making the statement he would leave his vote were it was,but didnt want to be associated with gregg's post (which automatically did associate him with it) and then after being informed Jak has full claimed trying to stay with that pressure. Why would you keep pressure with a deadline loming on someone who has claimed?
if he is lying it will out shortly.
But rather than to assist with Gregg you sidestep it.
jgordon, let me explain your error in your post. I believe, as I have laid out in several posts, that Jak is scum. So, he can claim all he wants that he is this and that and whatever, but I think he is guilty. So its not about putting pressure on him, its about me firmly believing he is guilty. If I am wrong, then so be it.
And the part about greg? I was trying to be a little grumpy at Greg because his post wasn't contributing anything to the case built on Jak. I think that you would agree that his post was maybe one of the most epically worst posts in mafia history with a vote attached to it. I was saying, in my own (and obviously mistaken way) that if he was going to build a case against someone, it better be based on some facts. Greg obviously got the point when he then posted a little better argument about Jak and his guilt. If you note, I thought that was better, so I didn't comment on it. Maybe I should have. So here goes:
Greg - That post was a little better. At least there is some legit arguments in it.
So you see jgordon, its about me completely thinking I'm right about Jak. He hasn't proven to me that he is NOT scum. And if Jak flips scum (provided he gets lynched), then your post is a huge deflection and I think I know my next case.
FPed by Com9