Mafiascum.net

In post 402, Marashu wrote:@72 now that you've caught up would you mind explaining 285?

Seconded

In post 424, QuantumQuasar wrote:Do I really need to explain why I'm voting you Bailey

Yes you really do.

Bailey is respected too much, you shouldn't be shy of voting him or who you think is absolutely town and untouchable

I don't have to explain because that will be a comparison between you and others

You said you hope everyone is town is that right?

Did you know you can play tennis alone against a wall or would you consider a racket and a ball bouncing playing tennis? That's not tennis because there's rules right

Consider a tennis court for singles, why are the doubles lines present when there aren't any doubles? Who says doubles need to be mixed?

That's why it's called mixed doubles. Tennis is an essential service because when you're in a bubble of air or I don't know if you're playing indoors or outdoors or if you know what I'm saying when it's this tent that's full of air and you play indoors then when you try to play doubles and you can't because the doubles lines aren't present then you end up with this trendy basket walking and pushing the floor to pick up to serve

What just happened?

I'm a janitor for a gym so I don't really understand your analogy.

But uh,

In post 427, QuantumQuasar wrote:Bailey is respected too much

This is gonna make a great signature

If you consider the debates between Poyzin and Quick, in the event they're both town and just dueling then that would make you stand out?

In post 430, QuantumQuasar wrote:If you consider the debates between Poyzin and Quick, in the event they're both town and just dueling then that would make you stand out?

Why is poyzin vs me TvT? I haven't seen any reasoning unpacked for that yet.

Also, please explain why GB is Scum. It's true, they have a bit of charm, but that alone a Scum does not make.

In post 75, NotAJumbleOfNumbers wrote:UNVOTE: because out of RVS

In post 59, teacher wrote:

In post 57, GeorgeBailey wrote:

In post 49, Poyzin wrote:As a lesser but still impactful point, I also disagree with the town points awarded to Quick. For one, giving town points is in no way townie in and of itself, and there were already problems with Quick’s hasty rationale. However, GB giving town points to Quick after a total of 1 game-related post by Quick is already enough to raise alarm bells. I feel comfortable moving my vote out of RVS and towards someone who has a good chance of flipping scum.

I promise to follow Poe's law from now on.

That was a cheeky comment lmao. I was waiting for someone to continue the chain. I agree that Quick's.....

Quick

(sorry) assumption that active = Townie is too early.

But I don't think that usually comes from scum. Scum usually Null reads everyone so they can slide by without any resistance. And then "Null-scum" their partner in case they get lynched.

^this. There isnt much scum motivation to breezing into a thread, giving a quick townread, and disappearing. It felt careless/uncalculated. Thats why its a town ping.

I don't know about you, but there's a lot of motivation for doing that for me. It:
- doesn't take much effort
- shows that you have an opinion

In post 136, NotAJumbleOfNumbers wrote:

In post 110, 72offsuit wrote:

In post 75, NotAJumbleOfNumbers wrote:UNVOTE: because out of RVS

In post 59, teacher wrote:

In post 57, GeorgeBailey wrote:

In post 49, Poyzin wrote:As a lesser but still impactful point, I also disagree with the town points awarded to Quick. For one, giving town points is in no way townie in and of itself, and there were already problems with Quick’s hasty rationale. However, GB giving town points to Quick after a total of 1 game-related post by Quick is already enough to raise alarm bells. I feel comfortable moving my vote out of RVS and towards someone who has a good chance of flipping scum.

I promise to follow Poe's law from now on.

That was a cheeky comment lmao. I was waiting for someone to continue the chain. I agree that Quick's.....

Quick

(sorry) assumption that active = Townie is too early.

But I don't think that usually comes from scum. Scum usually Null reads everyone so they can slide by without any resistance. And then "Null-scum" their partner in case they get lynched.

^this. There isnt much scum motivation to breezing into a thread, giving a quick townread, and disappearing. It felt careless/uncalculated. Thats why its a town ping.

I don't know about you, but there's a lot of motivation for doing that for me. It:
- doesn't take much effort
- shows that you have an opinion

At what point do you think we left RVS?

Around post 24, give or take a few. That's when the conversation started becoming serious.

In post 145, NotAJumbleOfNumbers wrote:

In post 140, Quick wrote:

In post 139, Poyzin wrote:

In post 130, Quick wrote:

In post 127, Poyzin wrote:To elaborate, #113 felt less defensive from my perspective and more testy, like “bet you aren’t going to vote me”. I don’t think it’s townie not a productive mindset, which is why Quick is still a null read for me, but I’m pretty sure this was his plan all along. I’m only saying this because I’m townreading you for now and have been the person that I’ve agreed with the most, so I’m just letting you know how I see it.

How about no? How about you check my Scum games to see how I play as Scum? I am strategic as Scum and I get lynched a LOT as Scum, but my record as Scum is actually BETTER than my Town record. My wiki is right THERE check it if you doubt me.

Okay never mind, this is much worse than what was being posted before. This is pretty clearly defensive, but anywho, the crux of your argument is “I’m not scum here because I played completely different as scum in the past”. If you played the same way as scum every single game then I’d be sorry for you, and I don’t buy your “check my meta to prove my towniness” for a minute.

No, my point is that YOU are Scum because you have shit arguments for why I am "Null....lol"

Bad arguments != scum. It just means that you have bad arguments.

In post 148, NotAJumbleOfNumbers wrote:

In post 146, Quick wrote:Go ahead... Ask me for my reasons... I'm waiting for someone to ask me actually...

Well, okay then. What are your reasons?

I'll be doing this ISO from the context of (Isolation #0, #1, etc.) instead of post numbers. Hopefully that's how people typically ISO on this site.

The main take away from this is that a lot of the things that Jumble says fall into several categories, such as: a) surface level observations, b) fence-sitting and safe comments, and c) misc.

#2: This is a surface level comment. I agree with it of course based on the time it was posted, as scum can easily drop in and show that you're thinking before heading out, but that doesn't excuse it from the fact that it stated the common knowledge. The post didn't take much effort, and showed that Marashu had an opinion. Nobody can disagree because those two things are facts about the post.

#3: Miscellaneous. Talking about when RVS ended which both scum and town can answer honestly.

#4: Surface level comment. Of course town can make bad arguments, and scum can make good arguments. That's near a fundamental principle of mafia.

#5: Miscellaneous. It's a really awkward prompt for Quick to go off of. NAI by itself but could be setting up a buddy in the instance that Quick flips red.

#6: Surface level comments asking Quick for clarification. I agree that clarification was definitely necessary here but now that I think about it, this could also demonstrates a disparity between Quick and Jumble, with Jumble having to ask Quick for clarification. If the two shared a scum PM, then this post never would have happened. So I suppose it can be concluded that #5 is just an awkward post that doesn't really mean anything for either party.

#7: Surface level comment reassuring QQ at L-3.

#8: Surface level comment asking for clarification for a sarcastic post.

#9: Fence sitting, safe comment. Jumble decides to scumread Quick for NAI reasons, being sarcasm. The use of sarcasm may be annoying, but it is by no means a scumtell. Jumble just felt the need to get a vote on somebody and try to appear helpful, while also trying to not offend anybody with negative opinions or vibes.

#10: Surface level comment asking me to stop addressing non-players. Comes from either alignment.

#11: Fence sitting, safe comment. Jumble immediately retracts his vote on Quick after I call them out for their lackluster reasoning on that front, meaning that Jumble's vote is once again not being used for any means.

#12: Fence sitting, safe comment. Jumble once again decides to place their vote back on Quick after reading through what I had to say. Here I thought Jumble was going to make inferences of their own and say how Quick is scummy, but instead we get #13.

#13: Jumble once again scumreads Quick for the same NAI reason they stated in #9. Instead of sarcasm, though, Jumble scumreads Quick through their approach. No adjectives attached to "approach", so there is no information about how the approach is scummy. I just find it surprisingly strange that after being warned by me that sarcasm wasn't enough to scumread someone, and decided that I was right and unvoting, Jumble went right ahead and voted for them again for a very similar NAI reason. Either Jumble lied in #11 when they said that they understood how Quick's manner of posting did not necessarily make them scum, or there is more to the read that Jumble conveniently decided not to share in his readslist, which doesn't make much sense to me considering that because Jumble was voting for Quick, you would think that they had some sort of grounds for doing so. In general, most of the players were described using safe language, and mentioning multiple times that their null reads were prone to change. It seems to me like this is a case where Jumble doesn't want to be wrong about anybody, or get people upset that they're scumreading them. This mindset is usually employed by scum to save face.

#14: Fence sitting, safe comments (with a surface level comment mixed in). While naturally I do have to agree that I sounded clear and logical during the debate, Jumble did not talk about anything I said. I don't believe I ever wrote out a full-length case against Quick during our shuffle, because I never actually understood his case on me. With that being said, Jumble's paints his reads using very general terms, which I personally believe is due to them wanting to avoid backlash in the case where they ever appear to be wrong. The fact that it was drawn out is a surface level comment, and I am lead to believe that Jumble saying "the arguments were clear and logical" is a safe, fake reason for believing me over Quick.

#15: It's noteworthy that Jumble forgot teacher here, but this is most likely NAI. If Jumble flips scum then maybe this could be considered as a mate slip but it would be perfectly unwise to think too far ahead about this mistake. The townread also uses very general language, which I wanted to talk about. It'd be like me saying, "You know that song that goes 'do do dooooo do do'? You know the one... yeah, that one". It's a way to get the other players to fill in the blanks for Jumble without having to use any precise terms or quotes. I don't want to accuse Jumble of using this tactic, as these last few sentences have been complete conjecture with no way to prove it was the case. But it was just my explanation of why people using general terms while making many null reads and safe opinions is usually a scum move.

#16: The second point is actually explained by the first, so once again I have to assume that this read is fabricated. In the end, it's the perfect ammunition for Jumble to change his mind after just one Marashu post, while saying "it wasn't that strong of a read anyway. At least my reads are developing...". There would have been no reason to scumread Marashu in my opinion at this point.

@QQ I'm sorry, but for those of us in the back, could you please walk me through that? I get your reasoning of him not wanting to apply pressure early game by hoping it's an all-town game, but I don't see how he would be standing out if Poyzin/Quick is TvT.

PEdit - looks like Quick beat me to asking. In that case, seconded.

PS - I'm starting to think Poyzin/Quick might be TvT. There was something I was expecting to see but didn't - it might still happen, though, so I don't want to say it yet, but I'll point it out if I see it. If I haven't revealed it by D2 (and it's still relevant), feel free to ask then.

That would be a commentary on how he behaves and too speculative, in my view he currently stands out and I'm not taking responsibility in the event he is town because my accusation needs to be taken with a grain of salt, that's because I don't expect to convince or rally town to a cause.

What happened is that as teacher noted earlier, that Bailey was quite present early and for a reason or another that is his, he posted less and was less present so his one post voting jumble earlier could be indicative of what I mentioned as letting town fight with each other and reigniting debates by throwing back questions and keeping uncertainty present

This ISO is incomplete, I only posted after isolation 16.

In post 432, Poyzin wrote:

In post 75, NotAJumbleOfNumbers wrote:UNVOTE: because out of RVS

In post 59, teacher wrote:

In post 57, GeorgeBailey wrote:

In post 49, Poyzin wrote:As a lesser but still impactful point, I also disagree with the town points awarded to Quick. For one, giving town points is in no way townie in and of itself, and there were already problems with Quick’s hasty rationale. However, GB giving town points to Quick after a total of 1 game-related post by Quick is already enough to raise alarm bells. I feel comfortable moving my vote out of RVS and towards someone who has a good chance of flipping scum.

I promise to follow Poe's law from now on.

That was a cheeky comment lmao. I was waiting for someone to continue the chain. I agree that Quick's.....

Quick

(sorry) assumption that active = Townie is too early.

But I don't think that usually comes from scum. Scum usually Null reads everyone so they can slide by without any resistance. And then "Null-scum" their partner in case they get lynched.

^this. There isnt much scum motivation to breezing into a thread, giving a quick townread, and disappearing. It felt careless/uncalculated. Thats why its a town ping.

I don't know about you, but there's a lot of motivation for doing that for me. It:
- doesn't take much effort
- shows that you have an opinion

In post 136, NotAJumbleOfNumbers wrote:

In post 110, 72offsuit wrote:

In post 75, NotAJumbleOfNumbers wrote:UNVOTE: because out of RVS

In post 59, teacher wrote:

In post 57, GeorgeBailey wrote:

In post 49, Poyzin wrote:As a lesser but still impactful point, I also disagree with the town points awarded to Quick. For one, giving town points is in no way townie in and of itself, and there were already problems with Quick’s hasty rationale. However, GB giving town points to Quick after a total of 1 game-related post by Quick is already enough to raise alarm bells. I feel comfortable moving my vote out of RVS and towards someone who has a good chance of flipping scum.

I promise to follow Poe's law from now on.

That was a cheeky comment lmao. I was waiting for someone to continue the chain. I agree that Quick's.....

Quick

(sorry) assumption that active = Townie is too early.

But I don't think that usually comes from scum. Scum usually Null reads everyone so they can slide by without any resistance. And then "Null-scum" their partner in case they get lynched.

^this. There isnt much scum motivation to breezing into a thread, giving a quick townread, and disappearing. It felt careless/uncalculated. Thats why its a town ping.

I don't know about you, but there's a lot of motivation for doing that for me. It:
- doesn't take much effort
- shows that you have an opinion

At what point do you think we left RVS?

Around post 24, give or take a few. That's when the conversation started becoming serious.

In post 145, NotAJumbleOfNumbers wrote:

In post 140, Quick wrote:

In post 139, Poyzin wrote:

In post 130, Quick wrote:

In post 127, Poyzin wrote:To elaborate, #113 felt less defensive from my perspective and more testy, like “bet you aren’t going to vote me”. I don’t think it’s townie not a productive mindset, which is why Quick is still a null read for me, but I’m pretty sure this was his plan all along. I’m only saying this because I’m townreading you for now and have been the person that I’ve agreed with the most, so I’m just letting you know how I see it.

How about no? How about you check my Scum games to see how I play as Scum? I am strategic as Scum and I get lynched a LOT as Scum, but my record as Scum is actually BETTER than my Town record. My wiki is right THERE check it if you doubt me.

Okay never mind, this is much worse than what was being posted before. This is pretty clearly defensive, but anywho, the crux of your argument is “I’m not scum here because I played completely different as scum in the past”. If you played the same way as scum every single game then I’d be sorry for you, and I don’t buy your “check my meta to prove my towniness” for a minute.

No, my point is that YOU are Scum because you have shit arguments for why I am "Null....lol"

Bad arguments != scum. It just means that you have bad arguments.

In post 148, NotAJumbleOfNumbers wrote:

In post 146, Quick wrote:Go ahead... Ask me for my reasons... I'm waiting for someone to ask me actually...

Well, okay then. What are your reasons?

I'll be doing this ISO from the context of (Isolation #0, #1, etc.) instead of post numbers. Hopefully that's how people typically ISO on this site.

The main take away from this is that a lot of the things that Jumble says fall into several categories, such as: a) surface level observations, b) fence-sitting and safe comments, and c) misc.

#2: This is a surface level comment. I agree with it of course based on the time it was posted, as scum can easily drop in and show that you're thinking before heading out, but that doesn't excuse it from the fact that it stated the common knowledge. The post didn't take much effort, and showed that Marashu had an opinion. Nobody can disagree because those two things are facts about the post.

#3: Miscellaneous. Talking about when RVS ended which both scum and town can answer honestly.

#4: Surface level comment. Of course town can make bad arguments, and scum can make good arguments. That's near a fundamental principle of mafia.

#5: Miscellaneous. It's a really awkward prompt for Quick to go off of. NAI by itself but could be setting up a buddy in the instance that Quick flips red.

#6: Surface level comments asking Quick for clarification. I agree that clarification was definitely necessary here but now that I think about it, this could also demonstrates a disparity between Quick and Jumble, with Jumble having to ask Quick for clarification. If the two shared a scum PM, then this post never would have happened. So I suppose it can be concluded that #5 is just an awkward post that doesn't really mean anything for either party.

#7: Surface level comment reassuring QQ at L-3.

#8: Surface level comment asking for clarification for a sarcastic post.

#9: Fence sitting, safe comment. Jumble decides to scumread Quick for NAI reasons, being sarcasm. The use of sarcasm may be annoying, but it is by no means a scumtell. Jumble just felt the need to get a vote on somebody and try to appear helpful, while also trying to not offend anybody with negative opinions or vibes.

#10: Surface level comment asking me to stop addressing non-players. Comes from either alignment.

#11: Fence sitting, safe comment. Jumble immediately retracts his vote on Quick after I call them out for their lackluster reasoning on that front, meaning that Jumble's vote is once again not being used for any means.

#12: Fence sitting, safe comment. Jumble once again decides to place their vote back on Quick after reading through what I had to say. Here I thought Jumble was going to make inferences of their own and say how Quick is scummy, but instead we get #13.

#13: Jumble once again scumreads Quick for the same NAI reason they stated in #9. Instead of sarcasm, though, Jumble scumreads Quick through their approach. No adjectives attached to "approach", so there is no information about how the approach is scummy. I just find it surprisingly strange that after being warned by me that sarcasm wasn't enough to scumread someone, and decided that I was right and unvoting, Jumble went right ahead and voted for them again for a very similar NAI reason. Either Jumble lied in #11 when they said that they understood how Quick's manner of posting did not necessarily make them scum, or there is more to the read that Jumble conveniently decided not to share in his readslist, which doesn't make much sense to me considering that because Jumble was voting for Quick, you would think that they had some sort of grounds for doing so. In general, most of the players were described using safe language, and mentioning multiple times that their null reads were prone to change. It seems to me like this is a case where Jumble doesn't want to be wrong about anybody, or get people upset that they're scumreading them. This mindset is usually employed by scum to save face.

#14: Fence sitting, safe comments (with a surface level comment mixed in). While naturally I do have to agree that I sounded clear and logical during the debate, Jumble did not talk about anything I said. I don't believe I ever wrote out a full-length case against Quick during our shuffle, because I never actually understood his case on me. With that being said, Jumble's paints his reads using very general terms, which I personally believe is due to them wanting to avoid backlash in the case where they ever appear to be wrong. The fact that it was drawn out is a surface level comment, and I am lead to believe that Jumble saying "the arguments were clear and logical" is a safe, fake reason for believing me over Quick.

#15: It's noteworthy that Jumble forgot teacher here, but this is most likely NAI. If Jumble flips scum then maybe this could be considered as a mate slip but it would be perfectly unwise to think too far ahead about this mistake. The townread also uses very general language, which I wanted to talk about. It'd be like me saying, "You know that song that goes 'do do dooooo do do'? You know the one... yeah, that one". It's a way to get the other players to fill in the blanks for Jumble without having to use any precise terms or quotes. I don't want to accuse Jumble of using this tactic, as these last few sentences have been complete conjecture with no way to prove it was the case. But it was just my explanation of why people using general terms while making many null reads and safe opinions is usually a scum move.

#16: The second point is actually explained by the first, so once again I have to assume that this read is fabricated. In the end, it's the perfect ammunition for Jumble to change his mind after just one Marashu post, while saying "it wasn't that strong of a read anyway. At least my reads are developing...". There would have been no reason to scumread Marashu in my opinion at this point.

#17: General comment, and one that I don't agree with. However, I'll take that as Jumble's opinion that Marashu and Gibus were different cases, although I'll have to take this as NAI because Jumble's alignment hasn't flipped yet.

#18: General comment. Just listed a bunch of NAI things that Gibus said. I wouldn't even call them original ideas on Gibus' end though.

#19: General comment, talks about an NAI thing that Teacher said. Scum could also try to stop a 1v1 if their mate is involved in it. I'm not saying that I think that Teacher is scum here, but the possibility of scum making the same move is not off the table.

#20: General comment.

So that is every post that Jumble has said. Nothing has stood out as Jumble trying to solve the game, but merely to participate in the game. Scum tries to participate, town tries to solve. Nothing that Jumble has said has struck me as original thought, which is very surprising for somebody ranked 6/9 of most posts. QQ has posted less but the calibur of an average QQ post at is far higher than the quality of QQ's best post, which was their very safe readslist. I do not mean to offend Jumble when I say this; it's just that QQ is bringing a lot more to the table in terms of the quality of his questions and reads compared to the commentary that is currently being provided from Jumble.

This is my case against Jumble.

Bailey started this Poe's law that is sarcastic and when you simply look at the first three pages he's going back and forth with his statements as to RVS is not serious, then it is serious, then admits to a cheeky post and said that my request to gibus to remove that first vote he had on me suspicious, so maybe that could be indicative of playing too much and pushing the envelope too far because tit for tat goes only as far

This is where I spitball the idea that Poyzin could be teamed with QQ as well as 72...

That's quite a claim! I expect a conf town by D2 if I survive N1 and thought that if scum claimed a PR on D2 then that would be a smart play and this is the right place to try that kind of move

In post 439, QuantumQuasar wrote:That's quite a claim! I expect a conf town by D2 if I survive N1 and thought that if scum claimed a PR on D2 then that would be a smart play and this is the right place to try that kind of move

Did you post in the wrong thread?

In post 440, Poyzin wrote:

In post 439, QuantumQuasar wrote:That's quite a claim! I expect a conf town by D2 if I survive N1 and thought that if scum claimed a PR on D2 then that would be a smart play and this is the right place to try that kind of move

Did you post in the wrong thread?

Sorry, forget I said this. I see that this is the only game you're playing at the moment, as this is the only game that I'm playing as well. I just read this page and didn't see anybody claim. What does this refer to?

Forget that post as well. I was looking for somebody to claim a PR, didn't think you were talking about Quick's #438

In post 63, GeorgeBailey wrote:Poe's law is basically "People can't tell if it's a parody or not if you don't provide any indicator (like a winky face or /s or whatever)"

In post 45, QuantumQuasar wrote:@gibus remove that first vote please thanks

If this isn't a joke, i'd say this is the most suspicious post so far.

You see whatever Poe's law is and Bailey said he's following that: untenable.

@poyzin Quick suggested that I'm teamed with you and/or 72

QQ, what'd you think of my Jumble ISO btw?

In post 294, NotAJumbleOfNumbers wrote:Jumble - Locktown, obviously
Poyzin - Townlean, liked his beginning burst of posts and his arguments
72offsuit - Null, not really feeling anything on this slot
gibus - Null, kinda lurky with not much else to talk about
QQ - Townlean, feels very newbie town to me
Marashu - Slight scumlean, incredibly lurky and hasn't brought up much
Quick - Scumlean, I just don't think his approach is helping town
GB - Null, I can see this going either way, really

In post 298, Poyzin wrote:Also Jumble, you forgot Teacher in your readslist.

In post 305, Quick wrote:More or less where I am rn...

NAJM, 72
GB, teacher
gibus > Null
Poyzin

Unreadable: QQ, Marash

Note: there is probably 1 Scum in 72/GB

page 13 possible that poyzin and quick are both town, including jumble but jumble forgetting teacher could be a slip

In post 214, teacher wrote:

In post 212, QuantumQuasar wrote:Notajumbleofwords and teacher stayed silent, I don't know teacher

We both have more posts than you and I posted several times after you said I was silent in 160. What point are you trying to make?

This post is why teacher and jumble could be not guilty because teacher would never refer as "both" and "us"

jumble just wanted your posting with quick to stop so it's possible he's voting from irritation

Not directed at me, but I think the ISO case on Jumble is pretty solid. One thing I'd like to point out, his read list is in the order of the player list from post 0, so I do think it's possible that it was a copy paste error. I'm ok with applying pressure here. VOTE: Jumble



PEdit -

QuantumQuasar wrote:This post is why teacher and jumble could be not guilty because teacher would never refer as "both" and "us"

Why wouldn't scum!teach use "both" here?

L-2

In post 446, Marashu wrote:Not directed at me, but I think the ISO case on Jumble is pretty solid. One thing I'd like to point out, his read list is in the order of the player list from post 0, so I do think it's possible that it was a copy paste error. I'm ok with applying pressure here. VOTE: Jumble

THIS IS L-1

PEdit -

QuantumQuasar wrote:This post is why teacher and jumble could be not guilty because teacher would never refer as "both" and "us"

Why wouldn't scum!teach use "both" here?

review your question because I have the right to remain silent



Marashu wasn't present too much, I think Bailey asking earlier to not bus:

In post 408, GeorgeBailey wrote:Beatlejuice

I am back from work and reading.

pls no bandwagony.

shows that you're just voting too quick, I said jumble might be irritated with poyzin for posting too much

I'm having some deja vu of band wagonry, are you under pressure to lynch?

Bailey saying no bandwagonry could be reverse psychology to push for bandwagoning

In post 447, QuantumQuasar wrote:L-2

as of 391 there were 2 votes (GB and gibus). Poyzin voted in 398. GB did not unvote and gibus has not posted.

I got the impression that

In post 408, GeorgeBailey wrote:Beatlejuice

I am back from work and reading.

pls no bandwagony.

was in response to

In post 407, teacher wrote:@poyzin: why Jump from voting quick (and incessant casing and sparring) to voting WITH quick on jumble? I don’t see much of case at all in your iso. Also, why did you think your vote was L-2 (it wasn’t)?

I still like my wagon - anyone want to engage me on bailey?