WW16: The Outlaws and The Olives

[Rowain]

Right Rowain, I assume you are refering here to Gaspars post #1227, when he lays out his claims about you.

Correct

So this is a recap of your game so far, which if I had to guess at that time covered about 75 posts? If so missing some out and summarising is the only approach that makes sense, so omitted posts is perfectly reasonable, onto misreading posts:

He used waterbats tool to get all my posts. So him missing soemis not really reasonable. The fact that he misses those that don't fit in his theory is very lucky for him isn't it.

1. Piggybacking Novice - you quote novice say agreed and echo his vote... looks like a fair call to me

You do miss that I called Bigger suspicious for his BW- earlier before novice even made his post. Ichabod did find that why don't you and Gaspar?

6. The 9 posts - He is correct, you do ask a lot of questions, or do no content posts without giving your feel on any matters, and that is a fairly scummy play

Yes but I did question first Qg whom I voted for at that time. And when I was finished with Qg I switched to pindicator with reference to his posting about which I already taked at night. I did question catwalk and waterbat to look for more talk than just pindicator is scum. And I did defend my vote vs pindicator.

In summary there is a mild exageration in one or two of his posts, but generally I don't see what you are upset about, much less how you could make a case against him from it

His accussation of piggybacking novice is wrong because I suspected Bigger before novice mentioned him and his accussation of no thought ofmayself is wrong because I talked about pindicator severaltimes. So he misses 2 points that speak against his theory. He also accusses Meiz wrongly which makes it 3 accussing posts by Gaspar with errorrs in them in all 3 cases.

Why are you defending him?