Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2020 6:34 am
JJh limped into a flop at SB and everyone here is thinking he's on aces....In post 6273, MathBlade wrote:You make me so happy when you use poker analogies
JJh limped into a flop at SB and everyone here is thinking he's on aces....In post 6273, MathBlade wrote:You make me so happy when you use poker analogies
SK is impossible.In post 6255, NorwegianboyEE wrote:I don’t think JJ is likely scum. Maybe they could be ascetic SK or something. But unless we get a bunch of double kills i wouldn’t worry about it.
I mean when you aren’t thinking about the rules of engagement and decide to play by your own setup spec and rules you’re gonna end up high on the hog.In post 6275, superbowl9 wrote:JJh limped into a flop at SB and everyone here is thinking he's on aces....In post 6273, MathBlade wrote:You make me so happy when you use poker analogies
We all know how much worth your setup spec has, sorry if that’s too blunt.In post 6276, Titus wrote:SK is impossible.In post 6255, NorwegianboyEE wrote:I don’t think JJ is likely scum. Maybe they could be ascetic SK or something. But unless we get a bunch of double kills i wouldn’t worry about it.
No this isn't spec it's mod confirmedIn post 6278, MathBlade wrote:We all know how much worth your setup spec has, sorry if that’s too blunt.In post 6276, Titus wrote:SK is impossible.In post 6255, NorwegianboyEE wrote:I don’t think JJ is likely scum. Maybe they could be ascetic SK or something. But unless we get a bunch of double kills i wouldn’t worry about it.
After all April can’t have been town right?
Did I suggest that you did?In post 6220, MathBlade wrote:Lmao when did I claim to know everything?In post 6218, Almost50 wrote:There was nothing left to hide from anyone. I needed the public opinion and he reiterated the same argument, and Math backed him up (but I don't blame him because Math doesn't know "everything"). Titus started getting cold feet too because ddl was almost unanimous, so I figured maybe leaving ddl till later may backfire.In post 6215, Tayl0r Swift wrote:why was that discussion in this thread rather than in your PT?
I explained why from my own PoV.In post 6224, Bell wrote:How come no one thinks I’m scum anymore.
The scare quotes around "everything" imply that it's something that someone else saidIn post 6282, Almost50 wrote:Did I suggest that you did?
Oh yay! More context fails /sarcasmIn post 6286, Something_Smart wrote:The scare quotes around "everything" imply that it's something that someone else saidIn post 6282, Almost50 wrote:Did I suggest that you did?
For me it's taro, artichoke & cauliflowerIn post 6239, Bell wrote:Scum equity, lamist and rule of 3 are the 3 things I do not like.
I always thought he was a monkey.In post 6284, Tayl0r Swift wrote:for example, A50's avatar isnt a picture of A50 irl
Is that applying the rule of 3??In post 6243, NorwegianboyEE wrote:This post is LAMIST and i think Bell has high scum equity right now.In post 6239, Bell wrote:Scum equity, lamist and rule of 3 are the 3 things I do not like.
i dont want to dox him.In post 6289, NorwegianboyEE wrote:I always thought he was a monkey.In post 6284, Tayl0r Swift wrote:for example, A50's avatar isnt a picture of A50 irl
Are you telling me he's actually an gorilla?
Stop being so antagonistic. It's a well knowIn post 6247, Something_Smart wrote:How do you rule of 3 something with 5 names in itIn post 6232, superbowl9 wrote:Remember to rule of 3 thisIn post 6221, jjh927 wrote:At this stage, I think the scumteam is most likely to be DDL, Taylor, DS, and one of TGP and S_S.
Not even close.In post 6249, MathBlade wrote:Rule of three says anytime scum list three or more people at least one is scum (little more complicated than that but close enough)In post 6247, Something_Smart wrote:How do you rule of 3 something with 5 names in itIn post 6232, superbowl9 wrote:Remember to rule of 3 thisIn post 6221, jjh927 wrote:At this stage, I think the scumteam is most likely to be DDL, Taylor, DS, and one of TGP and S_S.
No. It's "A number is divisible by 3, if the sum of its all digits is a multiple of 3."In post 6261, Something_Smart wrote:No it's not, that's something else. Rule of Three I know is if scum mention three people together then it's more likely exactly one of them is scum.In post 6257, Bell wrote:Rule of 3 is just the 1 scum off wagon, 1 scum on wagon shorthand it's not a good rule of thumb.
In post 6264, Tayl0r Swift wrote:illuminati confirmed?In post 6250, NorwegianboyEE wrote:Yeah it’s post 6243. And according to rule of 3, (the number 3 is in that post count) and the fact that they bring up 3 points showcases that they are definitely definitely mafioso.In post 6246, superbowl9 wrote:Can I get one more piece of analysis here? 2 just isnt enough...In post 6243, NorwegianboyEE wrote:This post is LAMIST and i think Bell has high scum equity right now.In post 6239, Bell wrote:Scum equity, lamist and rule of 3 are the 3 things I do not like.
You may only think it, or you may even believe it, but you certainly don'tIn post 6284, Tayl0r Swift wrote:for example, A50's avatar isnt a picture of A50 irl