|
Post by Archangel on May 9, 2011 10:00:12 GMT -5
Vote Fluid Druid
For pushing the Ace case and then going along with it because it seemed inenvitable.
|
|
|
Post by CatInASuit on May 9, 2011 10:08:10 GMT -5
Vote Fluid DruidFor pushing the Ace case and then going along with it because it seemed inenvitable. Hold on, isn't this a bandwagon you were quite happily on, even before fluiddruid joined in? You voted in #D1.144, fluiddruid in #D1.145. And isn't this pretty much the same reason you used for storyteller on Day 1? Vote StorytellerI feel his vote on Ace is disingenious. If she is scum she will have scum buddies telling her that not claiming town in this situation would make her look scummy. This is a third vote on a growing bandwagon for a statement that I believe is attributable to her being a new player.
|
|
|
Post by special on May 9, 2011 10:10:42 GMT -5
I don't think so, but for the record, I skim. Less so when I'm scum because I'm being more careful. You know, you really should stop telling us that how you're playing now isn't how you play when you're Scum. Because, one of the things you do when you are Scum is point out how what you're doing isn't what you do when you are Scum...
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on May 9, 2011 10:13:40 GMT -5
fluiddruid (2,1): Archangel [30] Captain Pinkies (1,1)*: Special Ed [4] Archangel (1,1): CatInaSuit [26]
With these votes, fluiddruid will be lynched.
Edited to correct vote count errors.
|
|
|
Post by Archangel on May 9, 2011 10:24:24 GMT -5
Vote Fluid DruidFor pushing the Ace case and then going along with it because it seemed inenvitable. Hold on, isn't this a bandwagon you were quite happily on, even before fluiddruid joined in? You voted in #D1.144, fluiddruid in #D1.145. And isn't this pretty much the same reason you used for storyteller on Day 1? Vote StorytellerI feel his vote on Ace is disingenious. If she is scum she will have scum buddies telling her that not claiming town in this situation would make her look scummy. This is a third vote on a growing bandwagon for a statement that I believe is attributable to her being a new player. (OOG I'm sorry, seriously. I have Lyme disease which occasionally causes neurological issues and I seem to be having them today because what I'm trying to say isn't what's coming out in my typing.) The sentence you're quoting above should say vote Fluid Druid for pushing AGAINST an Ace case. See his post around #145 on Day One, this is the one that's bothering me. (I will go get the exact number as soon as I finish with this post.) As for the rest of it, I was not "happily" on the Ace bandwagon. I was one of the people who argued I thought she was probably town. Then someone, I believe Metallic Squink but I will have to go back and look, reminded me that I was overlooking the possibility she was a third party. I thought that was the most reasonable explanation for her refusal to state her alignment so I voted her.
|
|
|
Post by Archangel on May 9, 2011 10:25:05 GMT -5
I don't think so, but for the record, I skim. Less so when I'm scum because I'm being more careful. You know, you really should stop telling us that how you're playing now isn't how you play when you're Scum. Because, one of the things you do when you are Scum is point out how what you're doing isn't what you do when you are Scum... Ed, if you think I'm scum, go ahead and vote me, but telling me how I "should" play isn't going to get anyone anywhere.
|
|
|
Post by Archangel on May 9, 2011 10:25:46 GMT -5
Is there a way to quote a post from a previous day?
|
|
|
Post by metallicsquink on May 9, 2011 10:26:35 GMT -5
Good morning, everyone. So I spent last Night reviewing Day 1 and especially, Archangel.
(I apologize for the lack of links but I don't know how to do all of that over on this board yet.) My comments are in brackets.
Day 1 – Archangel Post 1: will nudge Ace Post 8: fluff Post 33: asks Sister Coyote if the wincons in the rules indicate that everyone in the game's alignment is either town or scum? [This question is surprising to me because it would require SisterCoyote to confirm that there are no third parties in the game even though there are third party roles in the possible roles list. I’m not sure why Archangel felt the need to ask this and/or thought Sister would actually answer. I also think it shows that she was thinking about third parties at the very start of this Day.] Post 66: "My alignment is also town." [underlining mine] Post 113: When asked about including "also" in her alignment claim: "Just a clumsy turn of phrase. I believe the people that were eager to claim town first in case of a lie detector probably are town. However, now I'm concerned about whether my statement could be properly evaluated in case some of them are NOT town, so I am going to restate it in the next post." [It seems to me that Archangel is now feeling like her alignment claim is looking suspicious and is going to restate it. Given some of her other posts on this Day, I think she slipped up.] Post 114: "I am town" Post 119: asks about Peeker Post 120: "And forgive me if I'm missing something re computer programming language. Would a lie detector be able to evaluate Cat's statement "$Alignment=Town" as a statement indicating Cat's alignment is town? (There's no pronoun there.)" [CIAS already addressed this in his post 104 and specifically stated that he used the exact wording from the posted vanilla PM; CIAS also called Archangel out for skimming] Post 123: In response to CIAS saying that skimming is a scum tell: "No, skimming is an Archangel tell." [She seems to be excusing her skimming as just her play style. This kind of post always bothers me because it feels like the player is saying “I know this looks scummy but that’s just the way I play.” ] Post 129: votes storyteller; “I feel his vote on Ace is disingenious. If she is scum she will have scum buddies telling her that not claiming town in this situation would make her look scummy. This is a third vote on a growing bandwagon for a statement that I believe is attributable to her being a new player.”; asks Ace if this is her third game and in her two prior, was she scum. [votes storyteller for making a third vote but never addresses Ed or gnarlycharlie’s votes on Ace. I think the whole third vote theory is crap but even if others believe it, would a scum really place that third vote and/or would a scum not place a first or second vote? Either way, Archangel makes what I consider a lame vote without considering anyone else who voted for Ace, i.e., using a lame theory to make a lame vote. It’s also possible that she didn’t want to jump on the Ace bandwagon too quickly because it was too easy. ] Post 131: “And I do believe that we can say scum would advise her how to answer that question without looking scummy if she's scum.” [In theory, I agree that if Ace were scum, she would be getting advice. However, I don’t think we can assume that scum are talking during the Day. Again, this could be another scum slip.] Post 141: clarifies that she meant “if Ace is third party” in her post 129 Post 144: unvotes storyteller; "on the grounds that he seems to have been genuinely trying to catch me in a scum slip, which is pro-town", and then votes Ace for possibly being third party [presumably based on my post 130 but again, going back to her first post of the game, it seems that she was thinking about third parties earlier than this vote.; And here she removes her vote on storyteller for (what I think) is a hasty decision that storyteller is not likely scum since he was asking her questions that he didn’t need to ask. ] Post 148: "Metagaming, but I just modded a game in which she was scum, and got lynched Day One for going along with the trend and looking agreeable." Post 150: "And, you're right about scum not needing to PUSH a bandwagon on Day One, but I was referring to jumping on a growing one, which is a different story. However, I'm no longer especially suspicious of Storyteller at this time because his questioning of me seemed genuine." Post 190: "Hi Moley...I'm not quite understanding your reason for your vote on me. It's because Catinasuit "warned" me and you think that means he's my scum buddy?" Post 192: Moley is " . . .in the "probably town" column for me because unless you faked your whole posting restriction, which seems unlikely, I don't see the scum motivation for calling attention to a posting restriction that no one else noticed yet." [Again, I think a hasty judgment call regarding Moley’s alignment. I do, in fact, see a scum motivation for calling attention to yourself: to not look scummy.] Post 193: fluff about messed up quotes Post 194: "NETA: The post with the screwed up quotes above, disregard. My only words were the last comment at the end asking Moley why he was voting me. When I reread his post, I understood why and addressed his reasoning in my next post. [More skimming. And just because she admits to it doesn’t make it acceptable.] Post 196: "@Catinasuit: I find it interesting that you don't address Moley's comment about your comment to me that "skimming is a scum tell." I took the comment as a joke, but Moley thinks it's possible we're scum buddies and you were warning me. I don't know what your alignment is but whatever it is, you know we're not scum buddies. So not correcting that suspicion is highly suspicious to me." Post 212: "A lot of people find my play style suspicious so I can't fault you there." [Another comment about how even though she looks suspicious, it is just the way she plays. Again, I don’t like comments like “I know this looks suspicious, but it’s not.” Since I don’t know your alignment, I’m not going to just trust you when you say this is how you always play.]
Overall, I found Archangel to be a little too quick to judge (which makes me think she knows something that I don’t) and a little too quick to appease (unvoting storyteller after just three posts; clarifying her alignment claim after realizing it might look scummy). I also feel that her quick vote and unvote on storyteller was a way for her to get in what she thought would look like a decent vote without being too quick to jump on the Ace bandwagon (which she eventually did).
vote Archangel
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on May 9, 2011 10:30:01 GMT -5
Is there a way to quote a post from a previous day? If you go back to Day One, at the bottom of the post you want you'll see an "add quote" link. Click it, then come back to Day Two, go down to the "quick reply" box and you should see a "view quotes" link. Click that, then insert the quote(s) from Day One that you want to add. I have intentionally not locked the Day One thread for this reason.
|
|
|
Post by Archangel on May 9, 2011 10:31:05 GMT -5
Is there a way to quote a post from a previous day? If you go back to Day One, at the bottom of the post you want you'll see an "add quote" link. Click it, then come back to Day Two, go down to the "quick reply" box and you should see a "view quotes" link. Click that, then insert the quote(s) from Day One that you want to add. I have intentionally not locked the Day One thread for this reason. Thanks, SisC.
|
|
|
Post by Archangel on May 9, 2011 10:34:48 GMT -5
Okay, this is a quote from Fluid Druid's post #146 on Day One. (Sorry Sis, I couldn't figure out the proper way to quote it.)
"Why would scum push a bandwagon now? It's Day 1. Odds are, we're going to hit Town, and there's no real imminent threat of a lynch to anyone besides Ace. Plus, of course, you're assuming here that 1) day communication is happening and 2) that Ace consulted with anyone else. Sometimes a newbie is going to make newbie plays and I can see how, to a new player, it wouldn't seem like a big deal to lightly push back with a "hmm, I don't know, doesn't seem like a good idea, I won't for now" kind of post.
Besides which, I read what Ace wrote. While I won't argue that Ace's lack of experience likely has a lot to do with what was posted, why would Ace decide to buck the trend of claims if a Townie? In my experience, newbie Town players are inclined to look agreeable, particularly early on, as the path of least resistance. I'm wagering Ace thought it would be easier to decline now (and hope for some agreement) than to not respond and be called to task for it later."
This is the reason for my vote. He was arguing AGAINST (seriously, sorry for the mangled typing) an Ace bandwagon and then voted her anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Suburban Plankton on May 9, 2011 10:41:05 GMT -5
I agree! I was silenced in my last game and could not post at all, meaning I did not even have the luxury of having restrictions, for a week. This is a game and it should be taken as a game. If you don't like your role, sub out. In my opinion it is mechanics like these that make the game more interesting and fun. Hey, it was Squink who said I didn't "like" my role, not me. I thought (and don't forget the mod agreed with me) that it was unfair that over half of Day One could go by and I wouldn't have had the chance to post a single thing. And that's ALL. I'm not saying that the role is unfair, and I'm not subbing out! You're not getting rid of me that easily! Honest Moley, Here you responded to a post by JustBeingGinger, even though he didn't mention you by name in his post. Does that not violate your posting restriction?
|
|
|
Post by Holy Moley! on May 9, 2011 10:44:21 GMT -5
Oh, I definitely agree with you there. I'm not saying ALL scum were on the Ace bandwagon. It would be good sense to have some of the scum be neutral or oppose it so that they don't get lumped together. But again, that comes under the category of trying to predict what the scum would do. Which IMO is not only a valid scum-hunting technique, when done well it's one of the most reliable. So, basically you're stating that each Scum player did one of the following: 1. Supported the lynch of Ace 2. Opposed the lynch of Ace 3. Was neutral as to the lynch of Ace. I think I understand. THEN WE ARE AGREED! But I get what you're saying you know... you mean "perfect information syndrome". In other words, anybody who was too confident that Ace wasn't scum too early on, probably knew it for definite anyway. I can buy that. Not sure if it applies too much to anybody in this game but I definitely think there's at least one Ace-detractor among the scum.
|
|
|
Post by Holy Moley! on May 9, 2011 10:50:31 GMT -5
Hey, it was Squink who said I didn't "like" my role, not me. I thought (and don't forget the mod agreed with me) that it was unfair that over half of Day One could go by and I wouldn't have had the chance to post a single thing. And that's ALL. I'm not saying that the role is unfair, and I'm not subbing out! You're not getting rid of me that easily! Honest Moley, Here you responded to a post by JustBeingGinger, even though he didn't mention you by name in his post. Does that not violate your posting restriction? I hope not. The post restriction reads exactly what I quoted, which is this: You may only reply to someone who has directly spoken to you (for purposes of the game, just a mention of your name is sufficient to be considered "spoken to.") "Someone who has directly spoken to you... JUST a mention of your name." In other words, not EXCLUSIVELY someone who says my name. Ginger was quite clearly talking to me in that post, even though she didn't actually say "Moley". And how many people that I've responded to have used my full name, but were also clearly referring to or talking to me? Let's put it this way, if there's any doubt about the situation, I'm hoping Sis C. will show leniency. Incidentally, I don't actually know what the penalty is if I do break post restriction. I'm guessing Sis C will come up with something suitably sadistic and depraved.
|
|
|
Post by Suburban Plankton on May 9, 2011 10:51:19 GMT -5
I posted this in the Day 1 thread by mistake, so I'm repeating it here: LightFoot, you posted this about 3 hours before Dusk on Day 1. We MIGHT have a MadBomber. I need to look something up Do you care to elaborate? And I posted this in the "Player List & End of Day vote Counts" thread... This is from the "Player List & End of Day Vote Counts" thread: ace093 (8,8): Special Ed [80], gnarlycharlie [97], storyteller0910 [115], metallicsquink [127], Archangel [144], fluiddruid [145], LightFoot [173], Meeko [250] Honest Moley (2,2): Rysto [243], BillMc [314] Fluiddruid (2,2): JustBeingGinger [153,160], Merestil Haye [304], Honest Moley [313,324]Paranoia (1,2): JustBeingGinger [237], colby11 [257] Archangel (1,2): Honest Moley [179], CatInaSuit [199] BillMc (1,1): Suburban Plankton [93] Captain Pinkies (1,1): ace093 [227] septimus (1,1): guiri [233] guiri (1,1): septimus [234] Meeko (1,1): Dirx [302] CatInaSuit (1,1): colby11 [102,168], septimus [206,234], Honest Moley [324] colby11 (0,1): CatInaSuit [110,199]storyteller0910 (0,1): Archangel [129, 144]Suburban Plankton (0,1): metallicsquink [111,127]gnarlycharlie (0,1): Suburban Plankton [79,93]Breakdown: person with votes (number of votes, max number of votes): person voting for [post voted in, post unvoted] In the event of a tie, the player who was voted for first during the Day (even if that vote has subsequently been removed) will be marked with an asterisk. SisC,
The vote counts here are quite a bit different from my own counts. Specifically, I have different counts for Honest Moley, fluiddruid, Captain Pinkies, and BillMc. Can you please verify the correct Day 1 Final Vote Count?
|
|
|
Post by Archangel on May 9, 2011 10:54:55 GMT -5
Metallic Squink, to address your vote (which I do believe is reasonable under the circumstances, but apparently I look scummy for not addressing votes even though I have already addressed most of the *reasons* for those votes several times):
1. Storyteller's questioning of me alleviated my concerns about him. I've stated why a couple times now.
2. As noted two or three times above, I skim.
3. Ace didn't need my vote to get lynched so I'm not understanding what you think my potential scum motivation would be to change my vote from one you describe as reasonable (Storyteller) to one that makes little sense unless I'm telling the truth? (I believed Ace was town, you successfully convinced me she might be third party, and I voted her because lynching a third party on Day One is preferable to lynching town.)
4. In fact my questioning about the third party was due to the fact that I keep FORGETTING the possibility that there's a third party. (In spite of the fact that, as you noted, there are third party type roles listed in the possible roles.) When I initially read the way SisC posted the alignments in the rules, it made me believe that there were only town or scum in the game. I don't expect you to believe this, but it's the truth.
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on May 9, 2011 11:01:54 GMT -5
SisC, The vote counts here are quite a bit different from my own counts. Specifically, I have different counts for Honest Moley, fluiddruid, Captain Pinkies, and BillMc. Can you please verify the correct Day 1 Final Vote Count? I am relatively certain these vote counts are correct, however, in the interest of fairness I am going back through the Day to confirm that I did not miss anything.
|
|
|
Post by Suburban Plankton on May 9, 2011 11:04:25 GMT -5
Vote: Captain Pinkies
He remains the only player who has not made a definitive statement regarding his alignment (simply saying "TOWN" doesn't qualify). Also, he managed to post twice during the 48 hours that comprised Night 1, equaling his total contribution for Day 1. If he manages to make some actual contribution to the game Today, then I may reconsider.
It seems to me that every person who ended Day 1 with a vote on ace because she refused to state her alignment throughout most of the Day should currently be voting for Pinkies for exactly the same reason. Am I completely off base here?
|
|
|
Post by Dirx on May 9, 2011 11:10:39 GMT -5
Actually, my vote count also shows discrepencies in the same places Suburban Plankton points out:
Ace (8): Ed(80), gnarly(97), storyteller(115), msquink(127), Archangel(144), fluid(146), Lightfoot(173), Meeko(250) Honest Moley (3): Rysto(243), BillMc(314), Ginger(316) Captain Pinkies (2): ace(227), Suburban(291) fluiddruid (1): -ginger(153)[160]-, MHaye(304), -Moley(313)[324]- Paranoia (1): -Ginger(237)[316]-, colby(257) Archangel (1): -Moley(179)[226]-, catsuit(199) Septimus (1): guiri(233) guiri (1): Septimus(234) Meeko (1): Dirx(302) CatInASuit (1): -colby(102)[168]-, -Septimus(206)[234]-, Moley(324)
BillMc (0): -Suburban(93)[291]- colby11 (0): -catsuit(110)[199]- storyteller (0): -Archangel(129)[144]- suburban plankton (0): -msquink(111)[127]- gnarlycharlie (0): -Suburban(79)[93]-
This match your count, 'Burb?
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on May 9, 2011 11:17:37 GMT -5
It matches my revised count, which I will post over in the other thread in a minute. I blame septimus
|
|
|
Post by Suburban Plankton on May 9, 2011 11:20:01 GMT -5
That matches what I have, as well.
|
|
Merestil Haye
FGM
Grudge Keeper
[on:Slumming it in the Middle-Earth][of:In the halls of Manw
Posts: 1,077
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Merestil Haye on May 9, 2011 11:20:24 GMT -5
I am relatively certain these vote counts are correct, however, in the interest of fairness I am going back through the Day to confirm that I did not miss anything. My records concur with Suburban Plankton. In particular, you've missed Suburban's vote shift from Bill to Captain Pinkies in D01.291. In addition, although you registered that JBGinger unvoted Paranoia in D01.316, you missed out the vote on Honest Moley. Finally, Fluiddruid is shown as having two votes, but two of the three placed were removed.
|
|
|
Post by gnarlycharlie on May 9, 2011 11:22:02 GMT -5
So, basically you're stating that each Scum player did one of the following: 1. Supported the lynch of Ace 2. Opposed the lynch of Ace 3. Was neutral as to the lynch of Ace. I think I understand. THEN WE ARE AGREED! But I get what you're saying you know... you mean "perfect information syndrome". In other words, anybody who was too confident that Ace wasn't scum too early on, probably knew it for definite anyway. I can buy that. Not sure if it applies too much to anybody in this game but I definitely think there's at least one Ace-detractor among the scum. i can't tell if only Ed was being sarcastic or you were too. at least that's what i got. The vote counts here are quite a bit different from my own counts. Specifically, I have different counts for Honest Moley, fluiddruid, Captain Pinkies, and BillMc. Can you please verify the correct Day 1 Final Vote Count? [/color][/quote] i concur. i have a different count for the same players. perhaps, SisC was using an older count.
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on May 9, 2011 11:23:31 GMT -5
Archangel (2,2)*: CatInaSuit [26], metallicsquink [37] fluiddruid (2,1): Archangel [30] Captain Pinkies (1,1): Special Ed [4], Suburban Plankton [47]
With these votes, Archangel will be lynched.
Edited to modify bad vote counts
|
|
|
Post by gnarlycharlie on May 9, 2011 11:33:19 GMT -5
[/color] He remains the only player who has not made a definitive statement regarding his alignment (simply saying "TOWN" doesn't qualify). Also, he managed to post twice during the 48 hours that comprised Night 1, equaling his total contribution for Day 1. If he manages to make some actual contribution to the game Today, then I may reconsider. It seems to me that every person who ended Day 1 with a vote on ace because she refused to state her alignment throughout most of the Day should currently be voting for Pinkies for exactly the same reason. Am I completely off base here?[/quote] yes. however Archangel seems to be 'forgetting' a lot so i'm still considering my vote.
|
|
|
Post by metallicsquink on May 9, 2011 11:35:02 GMT -5
Vote: Captain Pinkies He remains the only player who has not made a definitive statement regarding his alignment (simply saying "TOWN" doesn't qualify). Also, he managed to post twice during the 48 hours that comprised Night 1, equaling his total contribution for Day 1. If he manages to make some actual contribution to the game Today, then I may reconsider. It seems to me that every person who ended Day 1 with a vote on ace because she refused to state her alignment throughout most of the Day should currently be voting for Pinkies for exactly the same reason. Am I completely off base here? For me, the problem is that we were wrong about Ace so is it not possible that we could be wrong about pinkies as well (at least as it relates to his alignment claim)?
|
|
|
Post by LightFoot on May 9, 2011 11:40:04 GMT -5
I posted this in the Day 1 thread by mistake, so I'm repeating it here: LightFoot, you posted this about 3 hours before Dusk on Day 1. We MIGHT have a MadBomber. I need to look something up Do you care to elaborate? I was reacting to this comment ~~SNIP~~ I am voting Moley because I see that there was no need for a restriction to be lifted if Moley was not at risk of being lynched. I would like to think that a MOD would not just lift a restriction that they put in place. Maybe with us stating his name it triggers something, like the ability to do a NK or it places a bomb on the head of the person that said his name. Just throwing things out. Either way I do not like the claim. JBGinger’s ideas might be a bit extreme but it made me think………… There was something that Moley said that felt contradictory (I think it was about the time he started yelling). I did not get a chance to read indepth before end of Day to investigate it and hope to have time to do so today. Monday AM here and I am at work
|
|
|
Post by LightFoot on May 9, 2011 11:42:54 GMT -5
NETA the unassigned quote above was JBGinger D1.316
|
|
|
Post by Holy Moley! on May 9, 2011 11:43:10 GMT -5
i can't tell if only Ed was being sarcastic or you were too. at least that's what i got. Oh, I definitely think both.
|
|
|
Post by metallicsquink on May 9, 2011 11:55:39 GMT -5
Metallic Squink, to address your vote (which I do believe is reasonable under the circumstances, but apparently I look scummy for not addressing votes even though I have already addressed most of the *reasons* for those votes several times): Again, you seem to be both worried and apologetic for looking scummy. Can you not see how that would make a town player suspicious of you? This is a point where we will just have to agree to disagree because if you continue to act scummy, you will get my vote. 2. As noted two or three times above, I skim. Repeating the fact that you skim just makes it look like more excuses. Telling us how you play as scum (less likely to skim) isn't very helpful. What would be helpful (to you, at least) is to not play like scum. For me, I don't have much choice but to conclude that the reason you are playing like a scum is because you are a scum. 3. Ace didn't need my vote to get lynched so I'm not understanding what you think my potential scum motivation would be to change my vote from one you describe as reasonable (Storyteller) to one that makes little sense unless I'm telling the truth? (I believed Ace was town, you successfully convinced me she might be third party, and I voted her because lynching a third party on Day One is preferable to lynching town.) It does not matter if Ace needed your vote or not. And I did not describe your vote as reasonable. I said that you probably thought it looked reasonable. I said it was lame. 4. In fact my questioning about the third party was due to the fact that I keep FORGETTING the possibility that there's a third party. (In spite of the fact that, as you noted, there are third party type roles listed in the possible roles.) When I initially read the way SisC posted the alignments in the rules, it made me believe that there were only town or scum in the game. I don't expect you to believe this, but it's the truth. And again, you say that you don't expect me to believe this. It's like most of what you say has a disclaimer about you either looking scummy or how you don't think I'll believe it. Those types of comments actually make it more difficult to believe you. I'm already suspicious of everyone in this game so the player who keeps saying "I know this looks supicious, but . . . " and "I don't want to appear scummy, so . . . " sticks out to me.
|
|