ILikePie5

I don't think I'll be able to play in this one. Sorry.

Are you giving scum at least 1 fake claim? The reason I ask is just because I know nothing about the theme, and if I'm scum I know I won't have an interest in doing research to figure out a fake claim lol. In some games I'd put in the effort but with this theme + current workload I just feel like I wouldn't and that would suck for my teammate if I were mafia. 

But it seems you just weirdly worded the point that you think Pie is possibly legit deathproof?

We need to know if a lynch of a deathproof would end the DP. 

Pie advocating himself for a lynch is usually somewhat of a scum tell for him in games I've played with him. 

Does your PM say whether or not the DP would end if you were lynched?

Are you trying to look like a Jester?

We test pie at the end of the phase, 100%. If he is saulus then we got a confirmed townie, if he's jester, we yell at the mod for making a dp1 jester.

But we use the phase as much as possible to sus out scum til then.

Again, not a waste if we confirm a townie. That's valuable info man. Don't you remember in previous games how much we relied on simple POE in the late game?

I'd be willing to test his claim

Since we no longer need militias to defend the state, the 2nd amendment no longer serves it's purpose. 

It was just as easy to buy a rifle or even a handgun in the United Kingdom not all that long ago as it is in the majority of the United States.  They just have a different culture, and didn't fight for their rights.  "Gun control" as people currently understand it is a political phenomenon of the 20th century.

ILike3.14159265

Clearly his mistake was not sitting on Santa's lap, before telling him what he wanted for Christmas.

Otherwise I'm sure Santa would have delivered.

So was Lincoln.

I'ma post them tomorrow -- do you also play on Discord or nah? 

I have no problem listening to the other side. If i did, I wouldn't be here talking to you. But i'm not going to spend hours and hours of my life watching well known liars spew nonsense. If you want someone to review your "evidence", then it is incumbent upon you to tell us precisely where to find it. What you are are doing is roughly equivalent to saying that there is evidence you want us to read and it is in a book. You won't tell us what page or chapter it is in, just read the book. 

We obviously are not going to do that. Make your argument, tell us exactly where to find the "evidence" you want to present. If you can't do that, then why are you here?

Maybe you should present your evidence in a manner which isn't unduly burdensome. This is what you said -

Query: If you're not going to risk wasting your time, then why should I risk wasting mine?

17 minutes is too long. If there is any evidence in it then you can point to specific times within the video which show that evidence.

listening to 17 minutes of Fox "news" propaganda to try to find something that isn't complete nonsense is rather burdensome (since it is all bullshit anyway). Especially since you have a proven track record of just ignoring any information which challenges your pre-determined opinion anyway. So going through that would be completely pointless. 

Too lazy? No. Unwilling to sift through 17 minutes of footage? Yes. Unduly burdensome is unduly burdensome. The onus is on the claimant to present his evidence in a manner which is not unduly burdensome. You have not done that.