"I did initially just want to hear from him as he didn't say anything yet. Hence it was an activity vote"
Thought we dismissed doing activity votes early on day 1 again?
"Also that meant that, iirc, I had the first vote, which gave my vote slightly more importance if it wouldn't change. Which in my point of view wasn't a bad thing for me (and thus the town)."
Also I stated that I suspected Waghlon, but also that I did not have him as my #1 priority. That was and still is jseadog. As it wasn't possible to convince enough people in the time frame to lynch jseadog I thought and commented that we should either kill Waghlon or lynch nobody, cause I believe that he was the only one to kill that made sense from the options.
So you created the options by making the first lynch vote, and then couldn't change to the person you actually thought was supsicious because of the available options... that you created. Right...
"Also, reading back I stated that I tend to believe that sammy acted honest but had less of a clue yet. I did not consider him as an enemy in the game, in fact, more of an ally. It just does not add up."
I'm certainly not latching onto the idea that you're guilty just because Sammy was killed. it would have been a rookie move, and I do think you're beyond that by now (unless it's a reverse psychology move). However, to call the guy who accused you as his primary action your "ally," while also saying he didn't have a clue, is very weird to me.
"I remember jseadog always playing this as mafia in a manner that he is one of the type A players that tries to remove the threats to him. I was the person that placed a target on him most directly, saying that I do strongly consider him being mafia. Also I offered "evidence" for why I do think so, not just a gut feeling. If he was mafia alone I would think that he would have killed me directly, but with a trio things may change."
I'm not defending jdog. I don't have a read on jdog (haven't read posts below yet, see further down for thoughts), and he's usually pretty good at blending in. But when we're talking about the first day, it's incredible that your opinion has "evidence," while mine, based on post and lynch vote history, is speculation and nonsense. Early game, you're always going partially on gut feeling. Don't act all high and mighty.
"This is where bbl comes into my mind: He was in my suspect list as well. Also I, from the last games consider him more of the framer than the direct lyncher, as I'd do it myself. I already called my disagreements with him, so we weren't exactly allies at this stage. What raised my attention though that he seemed to be so well prepared for the kill and the instant reaction so early after the lynch was called. His thoughts seemed very well prepared/structured/planned."
Uhhh, what? You understand there was an entire day in between the lynch and my post, right? Certainly plenty of time to prepare my thoughts. As I said, I read through everything again only to realize the lynch vote had just gone final before I had a chance to post. So I already had some thoughts, and plenty of time to formulate them over a day into a post, once the new day began and I saw the night kill. My opinion was most based on the previous day, the sammy stuff was more of an afterthought that added to my already existent suspicion.
I'm smart enough to understand after ten editions that when I stick my next out on a hunch, I'm usually the one taken out. If I'm now suspicious for trying to "frame" someone, fine. Just remember that people like Croatia and knockout always try to get you to give your opinions, analysis and suspicions (knockout driving call on day 1). Now, when it turns on Croatia, it's a frame job, and I'm the villain. I'm just giving my opinion like I was asked, and making sure I don't miss a vote again. Look at it how you will.
RIP Exxon Duke, David Veilleux, Double Feature, and Monster Energy
1. I do not like kandes idea of a no lynch. I agree we shouldn't stick to a signle narrative the whole day and not do our due diligence , but I just don't think not lynching helps us much after the first day, and we're already behind cause of a mislynch.
2.) I gotta admit, I think jdog comes across as a bit desperate and overprotective here. It could certainly be a tell. However, it could also just be a guy being accused for actions that he can't control during this game. I've won multiple games with the mafia too, and there's always something in the back of your mind now that you have to micromanage your words more than usual because people will say you're doing it again. When you're singled out for very little, it's frustrating. I basically had to stop caring about getting killed to get over it. In the end, we're trying to help the town, not ourselves. Staying alive helps the town, but it isn't the end all be all.
3. I like knockout's analysis, but knockout is always thorough, so that doesn't tell me much about him. I'll have to take another look at trek myself. As I said, I was a bit confused most of the first day, but it's worth noting that while kandes mentions trek as "active," he's been MIA for a while now.
4. df_trek turning on me so fast is pretty weird, considering I used his post as the jumping off point for my own research. It could be that both Croatia and I are innocent, and df_trek knows it because he's mafia. Why'd he say anything if he didn't think it meant something? Playing us off against each other is a common tactic, and is often hard to pick up with so much going on. I'm not saying that's what's happening, but the thought is starting to creep into my mind.
5. Croatia deflects again. He's the one that never said anything about jdog, but turns it on Jdog for defending himself (admittedly to an extreme degree) today. Croatia, he got defensive after you accused him THIS time. And that original opinion wasn't based on "gut feeling" or "evidence." It was NOTHING. It didn't exist. You keep turning your mistakes on others. You didn't make a post, then accused Jdog again of not properly responding to a post that didn't exist, and now accuse him of actually responding to the post that did exist. I'm at a loss for words. What is the logic here?
I'm sticking to my vote for now. i have suspicions on others, like df_trek and jdog (plus the inactives), but Croatia has only gotten worse in my eyes.
RIP Exxon Duke, David Veilleux, Double Feature, and Monster Energy
Bbl I can't help but hope that you're intentionally trolling around because that shitload of crap is almost too much to handle for me.
Spoiler
Thought we dismissed doing activity votes early on day 1 again?
You dismissed it. I don't care about what you dismiss. I think activity votes are a good way to start the game.
Spoiler
So you created the options by making the first lynch vote, and then couldn't change to the person you actually thought was supsicious because of the available options... that you created. Right...
Nope, he created that with his very suspicious call that one out of him, trek and knockout has to be mafia, which in my opinion is very wrong as a town guy to say.
Spoiler
However, to call the guy who accused you as his primary action your "ally," while also saying he didn't have a clue, is very weird to me.
I was referring to my point of view, not to his. For me he was a tendency good person that was on the wrong track, e.g. my post #161
Spoiler
Uhhh, what? You understand there was an entire day in between the lynch and my post, right? Certainly plenty of time to prepare my thoughts. As I said, I read through everything again only to realize the lynch vote had just gone final before I had a chance to post. So I already had some thoughts, and plenty of time to formulate them over a day into a post, once the new day began and I saw the night kill. My opinion was most based on the previous day, the sammy stuff was more of an afterthought that added to my already existent suspicion.
I'm referring not to your comments on the day time, but exclusively to your comments about the night kill (as I wrote). And that was pretty quick, right!?
Spoiler
I'm smart enough to understand after ten editions that when I stick my next out on a hunch, I'm usually the one taken out. If I'm now suspicious for trying to "frame" someone, fine. Just remember that people like Croatia and knockout always try to get you to give your opinions, analysis and suspicions (knockout driving call on day 1). Now, when it turns on Croatia, it's a frame job, and I'm the villain. I'm just giving my opinion like I was asked, and making sure I don't miss a vote again. Look at it how you will.
What are you trying to say? That we are evil for asking you about your opinion? At that point you gave a pretty narrow but strong opinion. That is fine, it's just that I obviously don't rate the content. But while we're at it, I rate your follow-up comments now. I disagree with your reads on points 1 (was only directed to day 1 anyway iirc), 3, 4 though.
Spoiler
Croatia deflects again. He's the one that never said anything about jdog, but turns it on Jdog for defending himself (admittedly to an extreme degree) today. Croatia, he got defensive after you accused him THIS time. And that original opinion wasn't based on "gut feeling" or "evidence." It was NOTHING. It didn't exist. You keep turning your mistakes on others. You didn't make a post, then accused Jdog again of not properly responding to a post that didn't exist, and now accuse him of actually responding to the post that did exist. I'm at a loss for words. What is the logic here?
This has to be a joke of you. How would it make sense to refer to something I thought but seemingly forgotten to write down if it wasn't true. That would be an incredibly stupid move to set that up, because it just offers useless suspicion to me. Also I am not accusing jdog for the fact that he is responding. I am accusing him for the content he is writing about, not only in his response, but first and foremost for the style of his first post on this day.
But I guess enough talks of me now, I laid out my thoughts pretty clear, we need to hear something from Bikex, trekbmc, jaxika, Marcovdw, quasdas (not generally but in terms of his reads on players)
Didn't vote the previous night because I wasn't online (unplanned) in the hours preceding the deadline, but would've voted no lynch anyway as I didnt see much to go on at that point.
I do believe we should lynch someone as the discussions so far have been far more relevant than the first day. At first I thought today would lead to a croatia vs jsedog civil war before Croatia's retraction. I agree with bbl above that Croatia's behavior has become a little suspicious over the last day. I'm on his distrust list and the above statement probably didn't help me get off it though.
Ryant is confirmed town at this point with the lack of a counter-claim. For my part I cannot really give a good argumented read on who I believe to be leaning towards town and towards mafia. Not that I haven't read and analysed anything but most posts can always be interpreted in multiple ways if you read them from different viewpoints (ie what if this guy is mafia, what if this guy is town, what if both guys in this discussion are mafia and they are fooling us right in front of our eyes). I guess too few people have died yet to really make sense of previous conversations. My vibes and gut feeling have usually proven wrong.
I found that the Croatia's vote was strange, in particular for the post that drives it, and at the end he was still on him, when he claimed other names more suspicious by him.
All late posts by Croatia reflect somehow what I felt. I turned on you fast...never fast as you on Croatia btw...in any case the link is quick and easy at my eyes, sammy dies -> jseadog links this to Croatia clash -> you jump immediately with a vote on him.
I don't blame that you point at Croatia so fast, but that you cast a vote already on first post...that's quite a fast move, at least I would have waited for a reply by him...
Anyway I didn't cast a vote yet on you because I want to be sure when I call a name.
"Yesterday the discussion was not relevant because i have no idea hwat was going on. Today the discussion is more relevant but i dont know why. We should lynch but i dont know who and im not able to make reads until at least day 4"
Is that a good summary of what you wrote Marco?
Surely you have any sort of idea on anyone? Do you see any differences in how quadsas plays compared to last time? Anything?
knockout wrote:
"Yesterday the discussion was not relevant because i have no idea hwat was going on. Today the discussion is more relevant but i dont know why. We should lynch but i dont know who and im not able to make reads until at least day 4"
Is that a good summary of what you wrote Marco?
Surely you have any sort of idea on anyone? Do you see any differences in how quadsas plays compared to last time? Anything?
You still don't like that vote on you huh? Playing same way every game is foolish, especially in my case
Bbl I can't help but hope that you're intentionally trolling around because that shitload of crap is almost too much to handle for me.
Ah, we've digressed to swearing and ad hominem. Very productive
You dismissed it. I don't care about what you dismiss. I think activity votes are a good way to start the game.
I'm not the one who brought it up. I believe knockout did early, and others agreed. It was a mistake we made last game.
Nope, he created that with his very suspicious call that one out of him, trek and knockout has to be mafia, which in my opinion is very wrong as a town guy to say.
You were the first one to create a lynch train, then admit that person wasn't your preferred target, but that you voted for him because he was suspicious enough and he already had a lynch train... that you made. Say whatever you want. That's what happened. You never actually condemned Waghlon and explained why he was worthy of a risky day one lynch except a throwaway line of suspicion. He may have been worthy of it, but you barely explained why then. You're attributing your vote to that retroactively.
I was referring to my point of view, not to his. For me he was a tendency good person that was on the wrong track, e.g. my post #161
Fair enough on that one. Usually an ally implies mutual help though. Seems a misuse of the word, but I'll admit that's nitpicky.
I'm referring not to your comments on the day time, but exclusively to your comments about the night kill (as I wrote). And that was pretty quick, right!?
I already had thoughts on the day time, and the night kill seemed to add on to them or at least relate to them. I had to go to class and knew I wouldn't be back until several hours later, so I added my reaction. What about this is so hard to understand? Should I have ignored the night kill completely in my post and let a whole day go by again, so you could say that was also suspicious?
What are you trying to say? That we are evil for asking you about your opinion? At that point you gave a pretty narrow but strong opinion. That is fine, it's just that I obviously don't rate the content. But while we're at it, I rate your follow-up comments now. I disagree with your reads on points 1 (was only directed to day 1 anyway iirc), 3, 4 though.
I'm just saying that sometimes when you have strong members of the town against you, there's basically no right way to play. If you stay silent, you are suspicious. If you come out strongly in your opinion, you're suspicious too, especially if it contrasts those who hold sway. People always say we need more discussion and analysis, but when you give them yours and it goes against them, it's dismissed as baseless and unnecessary speculation. The best way to stay alive is to micromanage your actions to appear somewhere in the middle, but that's exactly how the mafia play. I'm choosing to just go with my opinion this time, for better or worse.
This has to be a joke of you. How would it make sense to refer to something I thought but seemingly forgotten to write down if it wasn't true. That would be an [b]incredibly stupid move to set that up, because it just offers useless suspicion to me. Also I am not accusing jdog for the fact that he is responding. I am accusing him for the content he is writing about, not only in his response, but first and foremost for the style of his first post on this day.[/b]
I'm not saying you intentionally didn't write about jdog in the first place, I'm referring to this:
that also means that obviously the argument with jseadog protecting himself got a lot weaker tbh
He made posts protecting himself because you actually did accuse him today. That's when he made posts defending himself. Now because your attack was new and even more out of nowhere, his defense is worse? imo it makes more sense you act frustrated in your defense when there's been less explanation of why previously. The issue is not you forgetting to write about jdog, it's that you were called out, acknowledged it, and then immediately turned your mistake on someone else.
RIP Exxon Duke, David Veilleux, Double Feature, and Monster Energy
df_Trek wrote:
I found that the Croatia's vote was strange, in particular for the post that drives it, and at the end he was still on him, when he claimed other names more suspicious by him.
All late posts by Croatia reflect somehow what I felt. I turned on you fast...never fast as you on Croatia btw...in any case the link is quick and easy at my eyes, sammy dies -> jseadog links this to Croatia clash -> you jump immediately with a vote on him.
I don't blame that you point at Croatia so fast, but that you cast a vote already on first post...that's quite a fast move, at least I would have waited for a reply by him...
Anyway I didn't cast a vote yet on you because I want to be sure when I call a name.
When was I ever in agreeance with Croatia in this game? I turned on him because I was presented evidence that made me reanalyze his actions. i think that's a valid reason if there is one in this game.
And I jumped on a vote this time because I got caught on the backseat waiting yesterday and missed the vote. I clarifed the vote wasn't final in that post.
RIP Exxon Duke, David Veilleux, Double Feature, and Monster Energy
When was I ever in agreeance with Croatia in this game? I turned on him because I was presented evidence that made me reanalyze his actions. i think that's a valid reason if there is one in this game.
And I jumped on a vote this time because I got caught on the backseat waiting yesterday and missed the vote. I clarifed the vote wasn't final in that post.
Yes this eases a bit the post, but a vote remains a vote, and can start a train, demonstrated by also jseadog second vote.
I think there's difference between doesn't cast a vote at all or just wait some hours. Btw I didn't charge you for being without a vote on first day. The activity of many players was so low that also you choice is logical.
Your fast vote is of doubtful interpretation, that's why I told you are suspicious.
When was I ever in agreeance with Croatia in this game? I turned on him because I was presented evidence that made me reanalyze his actions. i think that's a valid reason if there is one in this game.
And I jumped on a vote this time because I got caught on the backseat waiting yesterday and missed the vote. I clarifed the vote wasn't final in that post.
Yes this eases a bit the post, but a vote remains a vote, and can start a train, demonstrated by also jseadog second vote.
I think there's difference between doesn't cast a vote at all or just wait some hours. Btw I didn't charge you for being without a vote on first day. The activity of many players was so low that also you choice is logical.
Your fast vote is of doubtful interpretation, that's why I told you are suspicious.
To clarify, he may have started a train but his lynch vote was unrelated to mine.
PCM.Daily NFL Fantasy Football Champion: 2012 PCM.Daily NHL Prediction Game Champion: 2013 PCM.Daily NFL Prediction Game Champion: 2012, 2013, 2015, 2016, 2021
When was I ever in agreeance with Croatia in this game? I turned on him because I was presented evidence that made me reanalyze his actions. i think that's a valid reason if there is one in this game.
And I jumped on a vote this time because I got caught on the backseat waiting yesterday and missed the vote. I clarifed the vote wasn't final in that post.
Yes this eases a bit the post, but a vote remains a vote, and can start a train, demonstrated by also jseadog second vote.
I think there's difference between doesn't cast a vote at all or just wait some hours. Btw I didn't charge you for being without a vote on first day. The activity of many players was so low that also you choice is logical.
Your fast vote is of doubtful interpretation, that's why I told you are suspicious.
To clarify, he may have started a train but his lynch vote was unrelated to mine.
Yes, that's quite sure, I told before that imo it's very unlikely that you and bbl are both mafia.
@bbl: to shorten our argument I'll only react to the major stuff, if you want me to answer on other points please say so and I will.
I already had thoughts on the day time, and the night kill seemed to add on to them or at least relate to them. I had to go to class and knew I wouldn't be back until several hours later, so I added my reaction. What about this is so hard to understand? Should I have ignored the night kill completely in my post and let a whole day go by again, so you could say that was also suspicious?
As said, I am only referring to the part about the night kill, not about the day kill. To me your post sounded like the argumentation was building from the night kill and then towards the day before and not the other way round or separately. This may be different from what you meant to say and thus misinterpreted, then I am sorry, but that is what I take from that post.
I'm not saying you intentionally didn't write about jdog in the first place, I'm referring to this:
that also means that obviously the argument with jseadog protecting himself got a lot weaker tbh
He made posts protecting himself because you actually did accuse him today. That's when he made posts defending himself. Now because your attack was new and even more out of nowhere, his defense is worse? imo it makes more sense you act frustrated in your defense when there's been less explanation of why previously. The issue is not you forgetting to write about jdog, it's that you were called out, acknowledged it, and then immediately turned your mistake on someone else.
Then this is a major misunderstanding. With that post I meant to acknowledge that my argumentation about jdogs defensive post became a lot weaker cause I missed the call earlier. It should in no way say that jdogs position got weaker cause I forgot to post, that would make no sense. I thought that was clear, then again, sorry if the wording confused you.
Croatia14 wrote:
@bbl: to shorten our argument I'll only react to the major stuff, if you want me to answer on other points please say so and I will.
I already had thoughts on the day time, and the night kill seemed to add on to them or at least relate to them. I had to go to class and knew I wouldn't be back until several hours later, so I added my reaction. What about this is so hard to understand? Should I have ignored the night kill completely in my post and let a whole day go by again, so you could say that was also suspicious?
As said, I am only referring to the part about the night kill, not about the day kill. To me your post sounded like the argumentation was building from the night kill and then towards the day before and not the other way round or separately. This may be different from what you meant to say and thus misinterpreted, then I am sorry, but that is what I take from that post.
I'm not saying you intentionally didn't write about jdog in the first place, I'm referring to this:
that also means that obviously the argument with jseadog protecting himself got a lot weaker tbh
He made posts protecting himself because you actually did accuse him today. That's when he made posts defending himself. Now because your attack was new and even more out of nowhere, his defense is worse? imo it makes more sense you act frustrated in your defense when there's been less explanation of why previously. The issue is not you forgetting to write about jdog, it's that you were called out, acknowledged it, and then immediately turned your mistake on someone else.
Then this is a major misunderstanding. With that post I meant to acknowledge that my argumentation about jdogs defensive post became a lot weaker cause I missed the call earlier. It should in no way say that jdogs position got weaker cause I forgot to post, that would make no sense. I thought that was clear, then again, sorry if the wording confused you.
I think we've been misunderstanding each other on these points then. My lynch vote was more about the day stuff than the night stuff. I guess I can see why the post didn't come across that way looking back now. And yeah, that's what I thought you meant with the jdog stuff. This explanation makes a lot more sense.
RIP Exxon Duke, David Veilleux, Double Feature, and Monster Energy
Finally have read through all the posts so far and can give my opinions.
As #48 from knockout was directed at me I want to answer quickly on it.
Your reasons make sense thanks for the answer. I was much against a massclaim in the beginning, as I believe we very much rely on the power roles as they are the only thing that can give us something concrete (don't think they are overestimated). So putting them in the open would harm our chances for too little reward. However I agree that a claim without giving the exact roles could possibly have been a good idea. Especially as it extremely increases the value of the tracker, who now would know he found a mafia member if he gets a read on someone.
I know it's not relevant anymore, as that was a discussion of the past, but thought I should say something on that.
My opinions on the other players: ryant: Obviously the politician, no doubt. knockout: Posts quite a lot and I think he tries quite hard to appear pro town. As one of the strongest players, he knows that with his play style he would draw suspicions against him. You never can be sure about him. For me definitely someone I'd keep an eye on, but as he plays a big part in keeping the discussion alive and puts out some very informative posts, I don't think he should be put among the biggest suspects for now. kandesbunzler: Appears quite trustworthy. Presents his opinion and argues for it logically. I don't really agree on his "no Lynch" stance but I understand his reasoning. Also him trying to get the focus away from the Croatia v jseadog discussion seems honest. I don't think someone of the mafia would post something like that right now (not even to protect a mafia partner). df_trek: Was named as probable townie already a few times. I do not necessarily agree. Almost all of his posts are quite obvious reactions at the time that I'm not sold a mafia member that wants to hide in plain sight wouldn't be able come up with. He's not near the top of my suspects but I don't agree on saying he's one of the most likely townies at the moment. trekbmc: Was a prime contender for the first day lynch. I don't really know where to put him, didn't really make an overly suspicious impression on me. hillis: So far only few and weak posts. He did not voice any suspicions on someone only defended some people until now. Possibly someone from the mafia that wants to avoid saying something controverse? For now clearly a suspect to me. jseadog: Very suspicious behavior in the last day in my opinion. Answers accusations with weird and weak arguments and kind of behaves like someone that is caught. "Im a townie" is like the worst defence someone can come up with in this game. Also I'm not sure what the point would've been with proving ryant is the politician would be. At that point that probably was clear for everyone. Maybe he wanted to seem helpful with that? His behavior is hard to explain when assuming he is a townie. baseballlover: Difficult for me to read much out of him at the moment. He is also a very experienced player, so his actions can be explained from both a mafia or town point of view. Neutral for me atm. Croatia: The points brought up against him are kind of valid. For me at the moment he could be both, like bbl. They even could both be mafia or both townies. Jseadog does him a big favor by reacting so weirdly on the accusations, so I kind of have the feeling Croatia could be on the "right" side of the argument. However I would never trust him in this game. jaxika: His posts so far didn't raise much suspicion for me, I hope we get to read some more from him. Marco: I'm very suspicious of him. His few posts so far are weak and not contributing much. He actively tries to stay away from discussions, even writes that he doesn't want to take part in them. Maybe you can post some opinions you have on the other players? quadsas: Plays aggressively, which I think usually is a good sign. But also have no firm opinion on him so far.
Put short for me at the moment it would be between hillis, Marco and jseadog for the lynch vote, with the latter one leading the charge. I will await the discussion before putting up a vote.
To me it's also likely that someone of the strong and more active players are a mafia member, but it will be more clear at a later point in the game. Risking to remove one of them now wrongly is in my opinion not in the interest of the town.
knockout wrote:
"Yesterday the discussion was not relevant because i have no idea hwat was going on. Today the discussion is more relevant but i dont know why. We should lynch but i dont know who and im not able to make reads until at least day 4"
Is that a good summary of what you wrote Marco?
Surely you have any sort of idea on anyone? Do you see any differences in how quadsas plays compared to last time? Anything?
You still don't like that vote on you huh? Playing same way every game is foolish, especially in my case
<3
So you dont like when i try to encourage others to post more by asking them provocative questions? Do you think that discussion is bad for the town or only when i am involved?
see also #61 or #66
knockout wrote:
"Yesterday the discussion was not relevant because i have no idea hwat was going on. Today the discussion is more relevant but i dont know why. We should lynch but i dont know who and im not able to make reads until at least day 4"
Is that a good summary of what you wrote Marco?
Surely you have any sort of idea on anyone? Do you see any differences in how quadsas plays compared to last time? Anything?
You still don't like that vote on you huh? Playing same way every game is foolish, especially in my case
<3
So you dont like when i try to encourage others to post more by asking them provocative questions? Do you think that discussion is bad for the town or only when i am involved?
see also #61 or #66
No, I just spotted things that I really didn't like. I am waiting for these voting blocks to continue talking hoping someone slips up and then I can say my piece so that it doesn't fizzle out in between all those arguments
knockout wrote:
"Yesterday the discussion was not relevant because i have no idea hwat was going on. Today the discussion is more relevant but i dont know why. We should lynch but i dont know who and im not able to make reads until at least day 4"
That had saved me half an hour if I'd just written that. Croatia's boldness in the post above (post during my writing) probably aludes to me being online all that time.
Quadsas' play is much more tolerable for me this edition. Suggesting the mass role claim is fair enough but he didn't proceed to defend that as erraticly as before. However I do feel he was offended too quickly above, because I think you asked this question to me fairly to a) get activity out of me and b) given the history my opinion of Quadsas now would be good to know. I see absolutely no reason why Quadsas would see offensive in it as it doesn't accuse him of anything.
