Jump to content

Gophers World Mafia, Rags & The Mother Aligned have Won!


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, SwAg said:

This is objectively untrue.  I laid out repeatedly the evidence, and all you did was whine about X, Y, and Z.  If I was wrong on everything, you would be able to actually formulate a counterargument.  Instead, you're reducing the inquiry down to "am I scum? No... So, SwAg was 100% wrong because that was his conclusion."  It's asinine.

I already explained, the word is subjectively. Every argument you made was wrong. All your evidence was wrong. You were so wrong that you offered to mod kill yourself in a bet if you were wrong, which you didnt honor because you were wrong. 

I on the other hand was about 97% honest on everything I said. The one lie was the mafia hit would kill me, I could only survive civ hits. I omitted that part only so that if they did kill me, I sacraficed for the civ cause. 

Just now, Malfatron said:

i know you are being sarcastic, but i hit sanchez pretty damn hard in the mouth this game

I know. I just was busting balls. No can you please explain the Nacho list. Are their killers outside of that list? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, DingoLadd said:

Nacho took that to his grave, doesn't change the fact it was accurate. 

Keeping calling me clueless, it doesn't make it true. 

It didn't exist.  That makes it untrue.  That's how things work.

The fact that Ragnarok turned out to have a kill does not make what he said true.

Since you didn't explain it, I will ask again, just to reinforce that you make no sense:  Nacho claimed he had a list of roles that kill.  He claimed Ragnarok tried to kill him.  How do you get from sentence one to sentence two?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Matts4313 said:

I already explained, the word is subjectively. Every argument you made was wrong. All your evidence was wrong. You were so wrong that you offered to mod kill yourself in a bet if you were wrong, which you didnt honor because you were wrong. 

I on the other hand was about 97% honest on everything I said. The one lie was the mafia hit would kill me, I could only survive civ hits. I omitted that part only so that if they did kill me, I sacraficed for the civ cause. 

I know. I just was busting balls. No can you please explain the Nacho list. Are their killers outside of that list? 

No, you do not understand the distinction between objective and subjective.

All my evidence cannot be wrong.  Evidence cannot be right nor wrong.  It is merely a set of facts that infer one conclusion or another.

You're absolutely clueless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SwAg said:

It didn't exist.  That makes it untrue.  That's how things work.

The fact that Ragnarok turned out to have a kill does not make what he said true.

Since you didn't explain it, I will ask again, just to reinforce that you make no sense:  Nacho claimed he had a list of roles that kill.  He claimed Ragnarok tried to kill him.  How do you get from sentence one to sentence two?

One is true, the other is a lie. Done!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, SwAg said:

No, you do not understand the distinction between objective and subjective.

All my evidence cannot be wrong.  Evidence cannot be right nor wrong.  It is merely a set of facts that infer one conclusion or another.

You're absolutely clueless.

Okay, your ability to decipher your "evidence"is wrong. And also, things like the gopher write up werent actually evidence. So your evidence was also wrong. Everything was wrong. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...