|
Post by JustBeingGinger on Dec 5, 2011 16:44:26 GMT -5
on other news: I don't like the play of Ed with his comments that he is not exactly pro-town right now and with the forgetting that Archangel was lynched. BUT, I don't think this makes him scum, would scum be so bold to come out and say that he is acting not so pro town, maybe the 3rd party since the 3rd party has only taken out town, I am assuming that 1 of the 2 NK's might be happening by a mandatory 3rd party. No where did I say I wasn't exactly pro-Town. I am exactly pro-Town. No where did Isay I wasn't acting pro-Town. I am acting pro-Town. (or at least I am trying to). I am a Town player. I win with Town and only with Town. I am on the Town side. I'm Town. Town is my alignment. I get down with the Town. I am not responsible for any death other than through my participation in the discussion during the day and my votes. So it was not the exact wording that I stated, but... by my calculations, we have a 5 way tie for the lynch with me being in the tie-breaking position. I'd rather not die, but as my role isn't too terribly pro-Town at this point in the game, I'm willing to go. In any case, I'll follow sachertorte again. I was tempted to vote for lightfoot, but then, I always am. Vote: paranoia [/color][/quote] I am not saying that you are not town. I am just analyzing what you posted and trying to determine if I find it scummy or not. I posted before that I doubt scum would even type that and bring attention to themselves.
|
|
|
Post by moodymitchy on Dec 5, 2011 17:04:53 GMT -5
@Drain Bead
I was going to comment on Paulwhoisaghosts "apparent" comment saying that they thought the power meant that BillMc could disable the collars but when I went to check out if my thinking was correct....
I saw that he was actually paraphrasing(if that's the right word) a comment that colby11 had made in his post D2-#21
The whole line from colby11 is actually ...
"Quite interesting that there might be a power that can disable the collars. I am assuming right now that there is a power that can do that."
@Sister Coyote
Yes I do indeed recognise BillMc as a low volume poster but I don't feel that he didn't "claim" early. He has only been active in this game since toDay and like I said earlier.. I would assume that the best he could have for us would be a result from Night 2... Either that or he lurked the whole of Day 2 and IU very much doubt that happened.
|
|
|
Post by JustBeingGinger on Dec 5, 2011 17:08:31 GMT -5
Vote GnarlycharlieYou are voting for Lightfoot with really no case behind your vote. I went back to see what you thought was so scummy when you did a drive by vote toDay on her. I found this in Day 2. however, i don't see a serious case against any of them atm. the ones which are most suspicious are Lightfoot and Archangel. Lightfoot seems to be in trouble again although she doesn't seem to have done anything different from when she's town. i think her type of posting is a null tell. she doesn't seem to be squirming either as she is wont to do as scum under pressure. she did vote for Deon for statements she has seen him make as town in other games so i'm not sure why she chose to vote for him on D1. Archangel dropped by, voted and not much else. her reasoning was because SisC was jumping on a growing bandwagon. it was far from that. that couple also with her vote for Deon. she's another player who has seen him post similarly as town and still voted for him. i wouldn't mind seeing either lynched but i feel Archangel is more suspicious. So really you are saying that she is acting the same as when she is town, but you are suspicious of her enough to vote for her. Also your lack of posting. You made 4 posts on Day 1, 3 posts on Day 2 and 1 post toDay, being the one where you voted on LightfootThis just seems like a very weak vote and a safe place to hide.
|
|
|
Post by scáthach on Dec 5, 2011 17:34:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by scáthach on Dec 5, 2011 17:38:26 GMT -5
Yes I do indeed recognise BillMc as a low volume poster but I don't feel that he didn't "claim" early. He has only been active in this game since toDay and like I said earlier.. I would assume that the best he could have for us would be a result from Night 2... Either that or he lurked the whole of Day 2 and IU very much doubt that happened. In fairness, I think he said that he wouldn't be around for the start of the game.
|
|
|
Post by moodymitchy on Dec 5, 2011 17:43:01 GMT -5
If you check back.... I actually know he wouldn't be around for the start of the game.... I've already stated this I think...
Which is why I say that at best.... he would only have a result for Night 2... so my question still remains.... why bring attention to yourself so "early" in the game...
By that I mean his game from when he became active and not the start of the actual game.
|
|
|
Post by scáthach on Dec 5, 2011 17:45:26 GMT -5
Sorry for multiposts everyone - posting as I go through the thread and the less I quote in one post, the less I tend to tag fail. Vote GnarlycharlieYou are voting for Lightfoot with really no case behind your vote. I went back to see what you thought was so scummy when you did a drive by vote toDay on her. I found this in Day 2. however, i don't see a serious case against any of them atm. the ones which are most suspicious are Lightfoot and Archangel. Lightfoot seems to be in trouble again although she doesn't seem to have done anything different from when she's town. i think her type of posting is a null tell. she doesn't seem to be squirming either as she is wont to do as scum under pressure. she did vote for Deon for statements she has seen him make as town in other games so i'm not sure why she chose to vote for him on D1. Archangel dropped by, voted and not much else. her reasoning was because SisC was jumping on a growing bandwagon. it was far from that. that couple also with her vote for Deon. she's another player who has seen him post similarly as town and still voted for him. i wouldn't mind seeing either lynched but i feel Archangel is more suspicious. Gingers point makes sense to me. gnarlycharlie - What made you suspicious of Lightfoot to begin with? Nothing in the quoted post makes it sound like you think she's scummy?
|
|
|
Post by Inner Stickler on Dec 5, 2011 19:08:51 GMT -5
[/color] Same reasons as before, with the addition of the weird one-off vote from yesterDay. [/quote]Paul hadn't been posting at all the Day before, as he says he completely missed the start of the game, and the only post that I remembered of his at the time I placed my vote was the big one that looked like it had been cribbed entirely from Pollux's post and to some extent from Storyteller's. I don't feel like it's that weird a vote. I would have explained this reasoning then but I left it too late and barely had time to vote before work.
|
|
|
Post by Inner Stickler on Dec 5, 2011 19:30:55 GMT -5
Unofficial vote count
colby (3): PWIAG (#51), Special Ed (#55), scathach (#63) Lightfoot (2): Sister Coyote(#3), Gnarlycharlie(#28) Inner Stickler (1): Drain Bead(#18) sinjin (1): Caerie(#32) Caerie (1): sinjin(#33) BillMc (1): moodymitchy(#35) gnarlycharlie (1): JustBeingGinger (#62)
This is another case of a wagon showing up relatively quickly. If colby is scum, it would be trivial for someone to take the current vote and unseat him. If he's town, scum could easily build the bandwagon further.
The case that most intrigues me is Caerie's case on sinjin, in no small part because they both said their piece and then apparently left the thread. I'm more inclined to Caerie's viewpoint and the fact that sinjin thought Paranoia was so worth voting for that she made a post at the end of Day 1 that said, paraphrased, If I die tonight, look at Paranoia! and yet all it takes is a vote from Caerie and she's completely distracted from Paranoia.
Vote: sinjin
|
|
Colby11
Administrator
Creator of Hell's Kitchen Mafia
Posts: 1,193
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Colby11 on Dec 5, 2011 19:48:07 GMT -5
Vote Paulwhoisaghost
Yes, I'm a bit mad. Not because someone voted for me, but because of the reasoning. Paul's reasoning on Day 2 for voting for me were very valid. His reasoning today is pitiful at best.
He cites that my participation is weak at best... I would concur that for the most part I have been defending myself, but as for my participation, it isn't weak at all. His vote was the only post so far that he has made for Day 3.
He is still suspicious that I would vote for Special Ed. Well, yeah I want to vote for him again, especially since I feel like I had something with his actions on Day 1. I plan to revisit Ed if I manage to survive the day.
His reasoning regarding Bill's gadget suggests that either Paul doesn't understand Bill's gadget, or skimmed over it. I'm leaning towards skimming, simply because Bill's post leaves nothing to the imagination as to how the gadget works. Yes, I am skeptical that Bill actually has this gadget, because that is the game of Mafia, to question everything. I think this makes Bill a big target, so I think that Bill did this for a specific reason. What that is, I have no idea. It could be to gain town confidence, or to make him a target on purpose.
Yes, I offered a kind word to Special Ed. While I think that he is scum, I'm not completely heartless, and can understand a slip.
Hmmm... I missed a post, yet you misunderstood Bill's gadget...
I think that ends this vote. Sure, you can consider this a OMGUS vote, but the entire thing about misunderstanding Bill's gadget bothers me... alot. (and for the record, I sat on my vote, hoping something would change my mind. Nothing did.)
|
|
|
Post by special on Dec 5, 2011 20:00:25 GMT -5
I am not saying that you are not town. I am just analyzing what you posted and trying to determine if I find it scummy or not. I posted before that I doubt scum would even type that and bring attention to themselves. The role I was given isn't too terribly pro-Town at this time.
|
|
|
Post by special on Dec 5, 2011 20:02:50 GMT -5
Yes, I'm a bit mad. Not because someone voted for me, but because of the reasoning. scum scummy scummity scum scum scum scum.
|
|
|
Post by LightFoot on Dec 5, 2011 20:54:30 GMT -5
Seems to me he provided a link to his reasoning. Also, Why so eager to get Bill's information? I mean, I also wondered why he hadn't shared it, but then it crossed my mind he's revealed quite enough about what he knows already, without sharing any details IF THEY HAPPENED which I don't know if they did. ( can I assume you are typing at me?) yet another I support this case that is not a case at all post. Vote: SisterCoyote
|
|
|
Post by LightFoot on Dec 5, 2011 20:59:33 GMT -5
Vote GnarlycharlieYou are voting for Lightfoot with really no case behind your vote. I went back to see what you thought was so scummy when you did a drive by vote toDay on her. I found this in Day 2. however, i don't see a serious case against any of them atm. the ones which are most suspicious are Lightfoot and Archangel. Lightfoot seems to be in trouble again although she doesn't seem to have done anything different from when she's town. i think her type of posting is a null tell. she doesn't seem to be squirming either as she is wont to do as scum under pressure. she did vote for Deon for statements she has seen him make as town in other games so i'm not sure why she chose to vote for him on D1. Archangel dropped by, voted and not much else. her reasoning was because SisC was jumping on a growing bandwagon. it was far from that. that couple also with her vote for Deon. she's another player who has seen him post similarly as town and still voted for him. i wouldn't mind seeing either lynched but i feel Archangel is more suspicious. So really you are saying that she is acting the same as when she is town, but you are suspicious of her enough to vote for her. Also your lack of posting. You made 4 posts on Day 1, 3 posts on Day 2 and 1 post toDay, being the one where you voted on LightfootThis just seems like a very weak vote and a safe place to hide. Want a waffle cone with that? Although I agree that charlie’s is weak no substance ( like sisC’s ) you said earlier ~~~snipped~~~ I also agree with the case on Lightfoot and her "Deon Post". It does seem like a case that was built to justify a lynch vote. And Balderdash SisC week votes D1 ( no real case made) but D1’s are like that true enough Me-too-ish votes D2 ( on a case I debunked) does anyone read all my posts? Pops in first thing D3 and votes me again. ( alludes to something I posted that she “didn’t like” yesterday) care to elaborate?? Now JustBeingGinger states This is about my Day ONE vote to which ( when she changed her vote from Deon to Archangel ) Stated my D1 vote was “OK” … until now D3? and you may notice that the players that JBG voted for both Days we now know was Town. JBGinger how is my wrong vote D1 any different than yours, WHEN WE VOTED THE SAME PERSON initially? It is not that you voted for Deon, it is the method in which you used to vote or build your case. I first thought, oh she went back and read into what I had found with his post and looked at his other posts. Then in thinking about it, if you were scum, the best way to justify your vote is to build your case on him. In typing that I guess you can also say that about town... There are so many times where I try to say would scum do it or would a townie do it. I guess in this case it could be both. I don't know...
|
|
|
Post by JustBeingGinger on Dec 5, 2011 21:13:45 GMT -5
Vote GnarlycharlieYou are voting for Lightfoot with really no case behind your vote. I went back to see what you thought was so scummy when you did a drive by vote toDay on her. I found this in Day 2. So really you are saying that she is acting the same as when she is town, but you are suspicious of her enough to vote for her. Also your lack of posting. You made 4 posts on Day 1, 3 posts on Day 2 and 1 post toDay, being the one where you voted on LightfootThis just seems like a very weak vote and a safe place to hide. Want a waffle cone with that? Although I agree that charlie’s is weak no substance ( like sisC’s ) you said earlier And It is not that you voted for Deon, it is the method in which you used to vote or build your case. I first thought, oh she went back and read into what I had found with his post and looked at his other posts. Then in thinking about it, if you were scum, the best way to justify your vote is to build your case on him. In typing that I guess you can also say that about town... There are so many times where I try to say would scum do it or would a townie do it. I guess in this case it could be both. I don't know... [/quote] I am not voting him because he voted you and that I think you are town. I am voting him because he voted someone with a very weak case and even voted someone whom he said was acting town. I am taking you on your work that you composed your post about deon prior to my posting and that it was not a case built to place a lynch vote from a scum.
|
|
Colby11
Administrator
Creator of Hell's Kitchen Mafia
Posts: 1,193
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Colby11 on Dec 5, 2011 21:33:42 GMT -5
Yes, I'm a bit mad. Not because someone voted for me, but because of the reasoning. scum scummy scummity scum scum scum scum. Working on a christmas carol? or is your scum-dar broken?
|
|
|
Post by special on Dec 5, 2011 21:40:27 GMT -5
scum scummy scummity scum scum scum scum. Working on a christmas carol? or is your scum-dar broken? HAHAHAHAhahahHAH scum-dar, like mine ever worked.
|
|
|
Post by Inner Stickler on Dec 5, 2011 22:07:28 GMT -5
I spilled coffee on mine and now all it ever displays is "chartreuse"
|
|
|
Post by Caerie on Dec 5, 2011 23:40:34 GMT -5
I'm more inclined to Caerie's viewpoint and the fact that sinjin thought Paranoia was so worth voting for that she made a post at the end of Day 1 that said, paraphrased, If I die tonight, look at Paranoia! and yet all it takes is a vote from Caerie and she's completely distracted from Paranoia. I'd forgotten that she said that, but you're right. It just seems like an awfully hard sell on Paranoia for someone who isn't trying that hard to lynch him. If she'd changed her mind about him, that would make sense, but she never made that claim. As I'd said before, it also makes me wonder about Paranoia, but he can't help her voting behavior so sinjin stands out. I'm hoping we'll hear more from Bill before the day is out...
|
|
|
Post by Paulwhoisaghost on Dec 5, 2011 23:46:30 GMT -5
paul -- I was reading Bill's claim as being able to investigate the status of a collar, not to be able to disable it. Obviously the claim, if taken at face value, means that there is some mechanism by which a collar can be disabled, but that mechanism is not Bill. It seems you are correct. I didn't read that right at all. When I read it I was under the impression he could investigate the state of the collars or alter them. But yes, he can only investigate. My bad.
|
|
|
Post by Paulwhoisaghost on Dec 5, 2011 23:48:10 GMT -5
@ Paulwhoisaghost I voted for Special Ed in Day 2 (see post #48). I haven't decided whether I want to vote for him again based on that same information, plus what we have learned since then. Bill's gadget does not give him the power to activate, disable, or duplicate a collar, just allows Bill to see if they have been activated, disabled, or duplicated. Might want to get your story straight first. Hmmm... voting for someone based on a slip... When has that happened? OH WAIT, to me the last game! (PS- your link to your post from Day 2 doesn't work) moodymitchyBill is in my "I have no idea which side he is on" list at the moment. What slip are you referring to? I haven't seen any "slips" in this game so far. Nothing I would call a slip anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Paulwhoisaghost on Dec 5, 2011 23:53:46 GMT -5
@ Drain BeadI was going to comment on Paulwhoisaghosts "apparent" comment saying that they thought the power meant that BillMc could disable the collars but when I went to check out if my thinking was correct.... I saw that he was actually paraphrasing(if that's the right word) a comment that colby11 had made in his post D2-#21 The whole line from colby11 is actually ... "Quite interesting that there might be a power that can disable the collars. I am assuming right now that there is a power that can do that." I was paraphrasing Colby, but I was also under the impression that Bill had both those powers. Eh, whatever... no biggie. Now that I have been adequately corrected, I find it odd that Colby says he doubts Bill has the power he claims and yet, in the same breath, uses the claim to hypothesize the existence of a role that alters the state of the collars.
|
|
|
Post by Paulwhoisaghost on Dec 5, 2011 23:56:26 GMT -5
[/color] Same reasons as before, with the addition of the weird one-off vote from yesterDay. [/quote]Paul hadn't been posting at all the Day before, as he says he completely missed the start of the game, and the only post that I remembered of his at the time I placed my vote was the big one that looked like it had been cribbed entirely from Pollux's post and to some extent from Storyteller's. I don't feel like it's that weird a vote. I would have explained this reasoning then but I left it too late and barely had time to vote before work.[/quote] My vote post looked as though it cribbed posts by two different players? Neither of whom were voting for the same person as me?
|
|
|
Post by Paulwhoisaghost on Dec 6, 2011 0:14:52 GMT -5
Vote PaulwhoisaghostYes, I'm a bit mad. Not because someone voted for me, but because of the reasoning. Paul's reasoning on Day 2 for voting for me were very valid. His reasoning today is pitiful at best. He cites that my participation is weak at best... I would concur that for the most part I have been defending myself, but as for my participation, it isn't weak at all. His vote was the only post so far that he has made for Day 3. He is still suspicious that I would vote for Special Ed. Well, yeah I want to vote for him again, especially since I feel like I had something with his actions on Day 1. I plan to revisit Ed if I manage to survive the day. His reasoning regarding Bill's gadget suggests that either Paul doesn't understand Bill's gadget, or skimmed over it. I'm leaning towards skimming, simply because Bill's post leaves nothing to the imagination as to how the gadget works. Yes, I am skeptical that Bill actually has this gadget, because that is the game of Mafia, to question everything. I think this makes Bill a big target, so I think that Bill did this for a specific reason. What that is, I have no idea. It could be to gain town confidence, or to make him a target on purpose. Yes, I offered a kind word to Special Ed. While I think that he is scum, I'm not completely heartless, and can understand a slip. Hmmm... I missed a post, yet you misunderstood Bill's gadget... I think that ends this vote. Sure, you can consider this a OMGUS vote, but the entire thing about misunderstanding Bill's gadget bothers me... alot. (and for the record, I sat on my vote, hoping something would change my mind. Nothing did.) Where to begin?..... First of all... regardless of whether you consider my reasons that I added Today for voting for you, my reasons Yesterday haven't changed and are the basis of my vote. You yourself even say they are valid. I'm not suspicious that you would vote for Ed... I'm suspicious that you DIDN'T vote for Ed. You expressed pretty strong suspicion of him, but you didn't vote. You even now state that you still want to vote for him, so why not then... and why not now? You talk like you will get back to him if you survive the Day, but your vote for me isn't one of self preservation... The thing about Bill's claim is miniscule... I thought your comment was ridiculous, having been corrected in my line of reasoning and seeing that I didn't parse his claim correctly, I now realize that your comment wasn't ridiculous, just odd. All you did was state the obvious... but you say you are skeptical of his claim... your comment was based on his claim being true... but you doubt the claim is true? That doesn't make sense. The kind word to Ed was cuddling at worst, at best it was just another pointless post that doesn't tell us anything about you, Ed, or any other player or their intentions. Ok here we go... there is a huge difference between claiming you hadn't read all of Day 3 then changing your story and saying you must have missed that one particular post, and misunderstanding something that I read. My issue wasn't with you missing the post. It's that when you were pressed about it your story changed twice. Add to that the fact that there were only 15 posts prior to your posts about Ed, and this fact I find most intriguing, and it seems like you were trying to find a reason that you didn't vote Ed to begin with. It's text book squirming. So.... allow me summarize your vote post. 1. OMGYS 2. Misunderstanding Bill's claim means that I am scum. And I take it that you must think me misunderstanding Bill's claim is way scummier than whatever it is you think you saw from Ed... because you state you want to vote him... and yet you are voting me. If that is the case, then I guess I understand why you didn't vote him earlier. I wouldn't vote based on anything weaker than misunderstanding a claim either.
|
|
|
Post by Paulwhoisaghost on Dec 6, 2011 0:17:25 GMT -5
Sorry for the multiposts... I don't have a lot of time to get on lately... so I have to get all my responses in at once... and apparently one single large post wasn't to Inner's liking.... thus multiposts.
|
|
|
Post by CatInASuit on Dec 6, 2011 4:40:17 GMT -5
Day 3 Vote Count
colby11 (3): PWIAG(#51), Special Ed(#55), scathach(#63)
Lightfoot (2): Sister Coyote(#3), Gnarlycharlie(#28) sinjin (2): Caerie(#32), Inner Stickler(#68)
Inner Stickler (1): Drain Bead(#18) Caerie (1): sinjin(#33) BillMc (1): moodymitchy(#35) GnarlyCharlie (1): JustBeingGinger(#62) PWIAG (1): colby11(#69) Sister Coyote (1): Lightfoot(#72)
Not Voting: BillMc, storyteller, paranoia
With these votes, colby11 will be lynched.
Day ends in 10 1/2 hours ish.
|
|
|
Post by BillMc on Dec 6, 2011 7:54:17 GMT -5
BillMc could also be telling the truth about his PM regarding it having a power to investigate the state of a gadget... but I feel that this could be more of a use to SCUM rather than TOWN. SCUM already know who the Blue team are.... IF it's a SCUM power then they could use it to check the condition of their own collars .. Or they could check condition of a TOWN collar and perhaps then perform a NK on a TOWN player without fear of taking one of their own out too... My main problem with all of this is that BillMc is far too clever a player to have not thought of this himself.... or is he ? Maybe you should have used occam's razor to remove that tash of yours. You argue that it is beneficial for the scum to know the state of the collars - no shit batman. Don't you think it is also beneficial to town to know the state of the collars too? or don't you care whether lynching X would have side effects? We started with 24, so probably 4 or 5 scum So 20-4 or 19-5 We're on Day 3, we've already lost more than a third of the town. We'll possibly lose another 4 townies D3/N3 - so more than half the town will be likely dead by D4, and Mitch thinks that sharing information related to how the collars work is premature? A number of folk have said/claimed that I am a power role - that is incorrect. I have a gadget, not a power. I can pass the gadget to another person. I would assume that there are other gadgets in play which can enable/disable/duplicate the transmitters/explosives -- whether any of the dead town had gadgets, or passed them on is unknown. The other thing that occurs to me, is that this may be a completely non-standard setup. All we know is that Mahaloth was on the red team - it could possibly be 12 v 12 Does the Red team have a method of communication outside this thread? Vote: Colby11 Partly because I agree with Paul's case, partly because I really dislike Colby's explanation for his vote on Paul, but mostly because Colby appears to know a lot more about the gadget's than he is letting on. Both Colby and Guiri raised questions about them, Guiri got killed; Colby is still with us. So either Colby is town - has a gadget - and is still alive because the scum believe that there is someone else on the town side with a gadget to deactivate the collar (ie, he's protected, ie a doc gadget exists) so killing him would be a waste of time. Or Colby is scum, and he's been tentatively fishing for information about gadgets - he accepted my claim of holding a gadget with little or no scepticism - so to me, that says he had prior gadget knowledge.
|
|
|
Post by Caerie on Dec 6, 2011 9:24:26 GMT -5
The other thing that occurs to me, is that this may be a completely non-standard setup. All we know is that Mahaloth was on the red team - it could possibly be 12 v 12 Does the Red team have a method of communication outside this thread?They have to be communicating to choose night kills, don't they? Their numbers could be up for some serious debate, though. The rules don't give us what the Red Team win condition is, so they may not automatically win when they outnumber us.
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on Dec 6, 2011 11:08:06 GMT -5
<font style="font-size: 12px; "> Dec 3, 2011, 2:47pm, Sister Coyote wrote:<table cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" class="quote" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="100%"> Seems to me he provided a link to his reasoning.
Also, Why so eager to get Bill's information? I mean, I also wondered why he hadn't shared it, but then it crossed my mind he's revealed quite enough about what he knows already, without sharing any details IF THEY HAPPENED which I don't know if they did.</td></tr></tbody></table> ( can I assume you are typing at me?) yet another I support this case that is not a case at all post. Vote: SisterCoyote Whaaaaaaaat? I was pointing out that gnarlycharlie posted a link to his case from yesterDay. And I asked you a question. I didn't say a thing about the validity or not of gnarlycharlie's case. Though obviously I agree with him, since my vote's been on you since the start of toDay. Defensive much?
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on Dec 6, 2011 11:09:11 GMT -5
(And, yes, I was typing at you, but that beginning of the page snuck in on me.)
|
|