A wild Dsister appears!

(I was actually going to suggest you lol, thanks for finding someone who might join.)

I'm going to have to reread what linkz had to say about this. This is completely the opposite of what you were saying earlier;

"I was finding it hard to defend myself against wonk's accusations"

And, you defended him!

Also, I think it was noname who brought it up earlier, and he's right.

You've done almost nothing this entire game.

Also, I'm wondering why you've hid this for so long. It's not like it makes a difference. Why did you decide to tell us this now instead of in the first game?

The last point seems to have the only part that still requires a response (let me know if you feel otherwise).  I can see why you'd think that, but no, silence from me does not automatically equate to agreement.  In this particular case, I foresaw a pointless argument coming up, so I chose to avoid it.  ABC was the person I wanted to hear from, not prof, and debating with the latter was unlikely to get me much, especially after linkz weighed in on prof's side. 

Now that I've dispense with your questions, can you please answer the one I asked and that you haven't addressed yet?  For easy reference, it's how you can claim that I've primarily been making "late summaries and conclusions of the events."  On a related note, how much energy are you giving us this game?

Additional question created by your latest post, point 1, supra: you say there wasn't a "result to conclude."  What does that mean?  What were you expecting from me?  What would you have deemed an "overreaction," or a "dismissal"?

Follow-up:  why would talking to me today be "more informative than talking to proff"?

Firstly, before I answer this post itself, I would like to point out that your formatting is a horrible clusterfuck that could have been designed to inhibit readability.  (I don't think it most likely was, but that's how bad it is IMO.)

1.  Yes, apparently that was your original question.  Since it does assume that we also recognized it as a clue, I would have to say "no".  I would like to point out that I was not focused on this question at this time.  By the time I did, it was page 26 (@50) and you were asking a different question (did not specify that the answerer saw it as a clue).

2.  Well, they WERE new conditions compared to the question being asked as of the top of Page 26.  I didn't realize I had to go back to page 23 to find out what your REAL question was.  And frankly, when you ask a question ten different ways are you really surprised when you get an answer to the wrong version of the question? Or even if people get confused entirely? 

3.  Aside from the fact that I deny this allegation, you are ignoring the plain fact that I have given you MORE THAN ENOUGH information for you regarding whatever question you care to ask on the topic of the scalpel.  Surely the point of your question was to gather the information?  Or do you have some hidden agenda? 

4.  Word of God is that you are wrong and you should drop it.  No? 

5.  What?

6.  This is false, because ultimately the information you gather should be the same.  It's just that you get different answers depending on the question that people think you're asking; but the RESULT would be the same once people finally understand what you're looking for. 

7.  Not completely sure which idea you refer to, but if it's the basic one of TOS's post being a clue to the minds of the mafia, I think Point 4 covers it. 

8.  But ... but!  Isn't that the only evidence whatsoever to support that idea?  If you want to speculate they didn't realize, and proceed on that assumption, then I would say that is a poor way to scumhunt -- but go ahead, I won't stop you. 

P.S.  For the record, I didn't "believe" Wonk's claim per se, but I gave it enough credit that I thought it was an unacceptable risk, especially when we had someone like ABC to fall back on. 

please someone else respond to ff. I'm not doing it anymore.

For someone who criticized me for monopolizing the thread, it sure seems like you have nothing else to talk about except your own speculation of how I'm scummy.

FF:"that font is scummy, your idea is scummy, your noticing is scummy, the way your question was worded is scummy, your attempt to scumhunt is scummy, your sig is scummy, etc etc"

Have you even mentioned another player today?

Let me ask you a simple question ff, because this argument is beyond ridiculous now.

There are currently 6 people who did not KNOW that the flavor was a clue to wonk's role. Of these six, let's say three are mafia (this is in your odds for the sake of argument). So, given the odds, what is the probability that at least 1 mafia actually saw it?

Approximately zero, bitch.