Lady K

There is nothing I can say for you to believe me. So be it. It's your choice and your opinion. I already explained this many time over. I am an Oak. I went back to Day 1. On page 9, post 223, I mention that I am trying to choose between, Alister Pear, Hazel Hazelnut, Berty Birch, and Bobby Beech for my vote. At that time none of these four had voiced any suspicion against me. On page 12, post 285 I finally vote for Hazel. Then near the end I switch to Alister Pear for the number 12 vote for the lynch. On Day 1 the only two votes I cast were for my first two maple choices. So please explain how this is casting suspicion only on those that suspect me first.

Please see the post below. Here is another truth. I am not as tech savvy as I used to be. I didn't know that was how you bold on a write board, till you just now mentioned it. If I get nailed every time I voice a suspicion of someone, how am I to play at all? I did voice an initial list of suspect on Day 1, that did include those who have not shown suspicion against me. And I did not immediately turn around and voice suspicion of Barry; notice he used my poke at you and Bruce on Day 1 as his whole case against me voicing suspicion of only those who suspect me. Yet have I really called you or Bruce out since then? No. Why? Because I think you are both Oak.

Wall-E! This is fantastic news! My favorite Pixar movie finally getting made by LEGO. I really hope this doesn't sell out fast like some of the other LEGO Ideas sets have.

So with eight votes against me, I'll defend myself. Lets take a look at the reasons given for these votes. The first three came in with the fun of the low light comments. Which were true by the way, I do suffer from frequent migraines. Now Bruce unvotes due to the funny comment I made to Simon (this should have keyed everyone on the light hearted situation) Here is what Agnes had to say to all that. Jumping on a perceived bandwagon. Barry comes in next, convinced his case is solid (please all go back and look, I know its a lot of pages but you will see others continuing to post fluff and useless stuff after me) He has no true case against me, usually he gives more solid reasons for lynching someone, why he is trying so hard with no real evidence? I respond to Agnes. Agnes responds to me. Now Clem joins the bandwagon, using only the reasons Barry gave earlier (again with no solid proof) My response to Agnes. Agnes responds to me. My response to Agnes. Now we have Chester joining the bandwagon, reasons ?? None given. Here we have Sue, which I expected because it happens every time in every forest.... Using Simon's reasons with the reasons Barry keeps making up, but adding no reasons of her own. And now we have Bobby adding his name to the bandwagon. His reasons are a combination of Hazel's (I am annoying to Hazel), and the rest he made up ( I don't see post quoted to support his claims). And Bobby, I highly doubt with all your participation you have given so far that you actually went back and reread much of my posts from Day 1 and Day 2. I am an Oak. As I stated on Day 1 in that stupid argument with Hazel, I am prepared to do what necessary for my fellow Oaks to continue in the sun. Don't take this as me not wanting to live, because I do.

I don't see how it would totally collapse. If all the stump could reveal is their own personal role or information he/she had then that would still help the oak block. It's still a big risk because said stump would have to trust someone.

Well, I'm glad I made you laugh. I do get migraines frequently, hated my typewriter way back in school, love candles (but I use christmas type lights instead), and I don't wear bifocals (only glasses to read by). As far as the code goes, its a neat idea if you want the pain of dealing with it.

It is the truth. And at the risk of sounding like a dumb blonde (even though I am not blonde) what is so wrong with an Asterix?

It takes 12 for a lynch. If need be I will defend myself if the time comes for that. Voting just opened, there is still plenty of time for votes to change. Why should I panic as you suggest? Contrary to what Hazel may have misled you to believe, I didn't flail with two votes and I won't flail with five or more votes either. I know I am an Oak.

I'm glad Simon had a good laugh. I never complained about that, strange how you see it that way and jump immediately on what you perceive as a bandwagon against me. Noted. Again, defend myself against what? Do you really think I'll be lynched for low lighting my screen? You need to read the thread better.

Please, show me where I am complaining? Defend myself against what?

You seriously find it that funny? If I'm a fruitcake then what are you? A moth attracted to bright light?

Glad I could be of amusement to all of you.

Forgive me for disturbing your laughter, but I do have my screen turned down to its second lowest setting because bright light hurts my eyes at night. But hey, laugh if you want, I guess.

I really don't know. I'm typing in very low light so I guess it looked good to me.

Sorry if I used the wrong markings, but I was trying to emphasize the mothering part which is what Berty was doing for Hazel. And I am looking for maples, it just bothered me that Berty felt the need to give Hazel advice on what to not say to get deeper in the hole. But if no one else is bothered by it then so be it. And I too am glad Bruce was verified.

When I brought up his claim he overlooked it in his reply to me. Seeing as his reason was to contact me early day one because we had gone to mafia school together, I used the opportunity to talk about Barry who also attended school with us. I mentioned I thought Barry was not playing his regular style because he accused me based on early fluff. Normally he is more thoughtful in his accusations. Berty disagrees with me and thinks Barry is genuinely oaky. We have differing opinions. What bothers me is how Berty translated that into who I'm accusing when I never actually said the words I accuse. Early on Day 1 anyone would find that fishing for info. And you still didn't answer why you felt the need to give Hazel advice on shutting up about the vigilante. I'm not afraid to share ideas with anyone. In case you hadn't noticed I have been sharing my ideas in thread. And from my personal experience, only scum have ever contacted me that early on Day .

Would you rather I not play at all and sit by quietly doing nothing? Read what I wrote. I asked Berty why he *mothered* Hazel and gave advice telling her to stop talking about the vigilante because it was making her (Hazel) look worse and she was slipping into a hole she (Hazel) dug herself. Doesn't this strike anyone else as defending/supporting someone who has not been cleared as an oak? It sounds like he is telling her to shut up before she makes it worse.

Would you clarify something for me Berty, you seem to have contradicted yourself in the two posts above concerning Hazel. In the first post you state that Hazel is looking like a confused newbie. Then in the very next post you state that you forgot to say that Hazel's fishing looked bad to you. Well which is it? Also in the second post above you *mother* hazel by telling her to stop talking about the vigilante, how its only making her look worse and look like she is slipping deeper into a hole she dug for herself. Kind of you to tell her what to do. Very supportive of you, very buddy buddy of you. And for the record, you contact me first on Day 1 fishing for info about who I suspected. When I didn't give you anything, you seemed worried about being the Day 1 lynch target. I only recently asked you about your miller claim, but it doesn't mean I trust you with who I really do and don't suspect.

Nice alternative build.

It's up to the cop to decide who to trust with the info. If one of the stumps was the cop, I don't think it's right or a very oaky thing to do to push him for information. It's not nonsense and you know it! Of course you understand what I'm asking, you just don't want to answer it. This is too important an issue for the three of you to just decide right now for the rest of us. Some oaks aren't even awake yet, some haven't given their opinion, and one of the tree stumps hasn't even spoken up yet. I will restate nothing has changed from past games where we don't have this info, except for three trees who really really want this info bad. Why?

Thank you for answering. I just answered above how I feel it might benefit the maples more. I'm not speculating, I'm a very concerned oak citizen in this forest. I care about the fate of all my fellow oaks. And I thought this was the current discussion (I don't really see an argument over this topic). And you haven't addressed my question: If we have lost this information in previous forests (games) how have things changed now? Why is it so imperative that we gain this information?

Hey, I stated my opinion, so deal with it! I know, which is why I stated it would be helpful to us oaks. But at the same time, what if the maples don't know if they took out any power roles? Or what if they need to see what the stumps know (if anything)? We could be playing right into their hands.

I'm not comfortable with the stumps giving info based on power roles or results. I feel it will help the scum too much. I really want to know how the two stumps feel about this issue? Yes, the info could help us oaks, but I fear it will help the maples more. There seems to be quite a push from some trees for that information. In the past, information is lost when a tree dies, so how is it any different now?

There is way too much information to quote here. However, I do suggest everyone reread what has been said from Day 2 so far and then go back to the middle part of Day 1 (after all the chit chat and fluff) and read till the end. Interesting contradictions from what some trees have said on both days. For instance, I did learn that Lauren did not rally the lynch against Alistair (she voted 7th), but you lead the rally against Alistair even though you voted for Larry Larch till almost the end and then switched your vote to Alistair at the 11th vote. Alistair did indeed defend Hazel several times as well as voting for me immediately after I voted for Hazel even though he kept suggesting he might still vote for Hazel. I still believe they are both maples based on yesterdays posts. It's just my opinion. Hazel, you are twisting my words again the same way you did yesterday and the same way Alistair was twisting the words of other trees. I won't get into a lengthy argument with you again. If you had read my post carefully then you would have seen that I specifically stated that my typo was not suggesting you were the vig.

But why would you the vig do this? It would be a death sentence. So why would you bring it up, almost like you were suggesting it? Sorry, why would the vig do this? I'm not suggesting that Hazel is the vig.