Mafiascum.net

Voting Log, Vol. 2 No. 8

Shaft - 0
Thomas Pynchon - 0
Shakespeare - 2 (Thomas Pynchon, Phelps)
Edgar Allan Poe - 0
James Joyce - 1 (Poe)
Confucius - 0
Lemony Snicket - 1 (Seuss)
Charlie Kaufman - 0
Oscar Wilde - 0
Dr. Seuss - 0
Gregory Williamson - 0
Gertrude Stein - 1 (Rucks)
Spinning Paper - 2 (Kaufman, Snicket)
ee cummings - 2 (Shakespeare, Joyce)
EL James - 0
Fred Phelps - 3 (Danielewski, Wilde, Shaft)
God - 0
Mark Z. Danielewski - 0
Marion Zimmer Bradley - 1 (Stein)
Rucks - 1 (EL James)

Not Voting - 6 (Confucius, Williamson, cummings, God, Paper, Bradley)

With 20 alive, it's 11 to lynch. Deadline is 12/17 1PM EST

V/La:
Poe - Through 12/13
Pynchon - Through 12/10

↑ Shaft wrote:I notice you were awfully quiet around the time of the duel.

I work weekends, you racist.

Nevermind the fact that I got prodded, but I bet you love fags too, don't you Shaft?

Oh.

Wait.



Never mind. I get it.

And how is it that you fail to mention our Lord God not posting during the duel, then showing up here afterwards?

Answer me that one, Mr. Big Black Shaft.

Confucius - while I do see the value of asking questions (for example, if you want to hear, I am about to ask you multiple), action is important if we want to move forward as a group. Have you read the game? Do you have any thoughts on alignments of players? And, I asked you this before but you dodged it like the Quagmire triplets dodge hawks trying to poke a hole in their floating home, what information have you gathered from the answers you've received?

Pynchon makes some interesting points about Rucks that I'll have to look into when there are no frightening men in suits asking me to give them money. I've thought the man an innocent, but if the contradictions Pynchon points out are true, then his allegiances are indeed called into question.

↑ Fred Phelps wrote:Answer me that one, Mr. Big Black Shaft.

Hold up I'm eating

Ahhh, alright, time to take a shit.

↑ Fred Phelps wrote:

↑ Shaft wrote:I notice you were awfully quiet around the time of the duel.

I work weekends, you racist.

November 27 to December 5. Long weekend you got there.

My family raised me not to question God or his work. Sure you aren't an atheist, sir?

Think of it this way. You and God are busy bodies; some of the quietest in the bunch. You defy Lord God pretty much all throughout this gathering, as well as defend Jane and antagonize Seuss. God is quite the opposite. Following me so far?

If you want to compare yourself to God, let's see...should I suspect the person who defended a known white devil before she was locked in a duel, or should I suspect the one who didn't give Jane nor Seuss much mind at all? I'll go with the first. Motive is everything to us detectives. You've been humping God's leg all game. To me, this means it's less likely you're both scum. Thing is, only you are in my sights.

I can't say I've ever personally met a homosexual, but I have no reason to get on their case. If you have a problem with them, maybe it's in fact a weird obsession..

By all means, show me where I defended Jane Austen.

With quotes.

You're a liar, and a bad one at that. The Ten Commandments are very clear on the subject, Big Black Shaft.

Exodus 20:16, Thou shalt not give false witness against thy neighbor. Thou shalt not.

Now, don't get me wrong, Phallus, I've nothing against you or your people. In fact, I was a leading champion of civil rights in my law days. But I'm not going to allow you to slander me, either.

Further, my suspicion of Seuss, no matter HOW many times people claim otherwise--- was never about the hammer. This is a slanderous blasphemy against me and against the True Word. No, I said several times that my reason for suspecting him was his cavalier attitude as he dropped the hammer and continuing that attitude once accused of lurking.

Naturally, seeing that he had a role that could be easily proven certainly explains why he would be so smug and self-assured, but I couldn't know that at the time.

You're right, I confused you and James Joyce as having defended Jane. Sorry, whites all look the same to me. I didn't go back to check but after doing so, it's James Joyce who I was thinking of; add him to the hit list.

Oh, you made no mention of Jane at all. Some distancing you got going on there.

Have you tried the chicken?

So wait, if I defend her, I'm scum, but if I don't talk about her I'm scum?

How in the name of all that is holy did you manage to become a detective?

And I *did* mention her at least once, though it was in an off-handed way.

In fact, there are a great number of players in this game that I haven't talked about.

Can't very well be scum with all of them, now can I?

Titus 1:9

(tldr not moving my vote honkey)

Leave it there until judgement day for all I care.

Racist.

I'm gonna take a guess judgement day comes before this game ends.

Apparently in all the flurry of activity the scumminess of Zipper-Bradford evaporated like so much steam from a cup of tea. That's acceptable for the nonce; we shall hang her at a later date.

Today, we shall engage with and root out the true scum and lynch them.

Mr Kaufman: Why do you feel that someone is scum? Who is the scum? Why are you scum?

Mr Joyce: Elaborate, please, on the inscrutable things you said of me.

Mr Shaft: Have you ever been to France? Who is your secondmost suspect?

We got a scum, pat yourself on the back!
But now is not the time to slack!
Activity dips, it dives, it wanes!
Where's Cummings? Ruks? Williamson? James?

(Mod: Can we get prods on the afore-menitoned players?)

Never been to France but I do love French kisses.

Phelps, Joyce, Shakes, and one of Kaufman or the spinning paper. It's making me dizzy.

I read through Rucks' ISO, and I believe Pynchon must have misinterpreted #143, as Rucks does not call the two of them criminals.

I see Confucius has not returned. For now there is nothing wrong with that, as it seems the conference room has been as empty as a basin of water laid out in the desert. Hopefully he realizes that I asked him a question in my last post.

↑ Lemony Snicket wrote:I read through Rucks' ISO, and I believe Pynchon must have misinterpreted #143, as Rucks does not call the two of them criminals.

Indeed, I did; missed the "he says."

Shakespeare steals candy from baby.