Werewolf XCVIII - 24 Day Game Over - Post 2899 - Page 26

DaddyTorgo · 07-09-2009, 08:49 AM

i have thoughts on everyone else in the game, with some sort of roadmap

i have probably somewhere around ~40% of the remaining people in the game on a "high trust" list - of those 1 is lower than the others, 1 i could see being a wolf and using their power to buy my trust, 1 could be the same way but the chances are much smaller IMO, and the rest are totally clear.

2 people have claimed powers that we cannot verify publicly (or me privately for that matter). 1 person i haven't heard from all. 3 people have roles it would be difficult (but not impossible) to test publicly. 2 people pushed quickly (via PM) to use their powers against autumn last night (might be nothing but might be something). the rest of the people in the game there are conceivably ways for them to demonstrate their power publicly and move onto the high-trust list.

DaddyTorgo · 07-09-2009, 08:51 AM

i wouldn't share the complete picture and all thoughts with everyone on the "totally clear" list though. just to be clear.

saldana · 07-09-2009, 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

interesting that you're pushing for me to reveal info when nobody (including me) has heard much of anything from you at all the whole game.

first, i am not pushing for anything, i am just saying i am concerned that we have all our eggs in the daddytorgo basket, and that the wolves could be using you to try to hide themselves.

second, no, i havent sent you (or anyone else) any of my 4 pms...havent seen a reason to, or a value it in...nothing can be confirmed, and it has been my experience that more problems come from sharing with someone you dont trust 100% than not sharing at all (a fact that you have proven two nights in a row)

Passacaglia · 07-09-2009, 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

i have thoughts on everyone else in the game, with some sort of roadmap

i have probably somewhere around ~40% of the remaining people in the game on a "high trust" list - of those 1 is lower than the others, 1 i could see being a wolf and using their power to buy my trust, 1 could be the same way but the chances are much smaller IMO, and the rest are totally clear.

2 people have claimed powers that we cannot verify publicly (or me privately for that matter). 1 person i haven't heard from all. 3 people have roles it would be difficult (but not impossible) to test publicly. 2 people pushed quickly (via PM) to use their powers against autumn last night (might be nothing but might be something). the rest of the people in the game there are conceivably ways for them to demonstrate their power publicly and move onto the high-trust list.

We've got 20 players left? So 40% of them is 5. But 3 of them you seem to have questions about. So it sounds more like you've got high trust in 2, and medium trust in 3, IMO. Obviously, though, I don't know the specifics.

DaddyTorgo · 07-09-2009, 08:54 AM

so my thinking today would be to go after the person who i've heard nothing from or one of the two people who have roles whose effects cannot be observed publicly.

DaddyTorgo · 07-09-2009, 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

We've got 20 players left? So 40% of them is 5. But 3 of them you seem to have questions about. So it sounds more like you've got high trust in 2, and medium trust in 3, IMO. Obviously, though, I don't know the specifics.

well then my math on the % is off, cuz your numbers are not correct (i don't want to narrow it down too much more). i have high trust in between somewhere between 0-6 people

Passacaglia · 07-09-2009, 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saldana

first, i am not pushing for anything, i am just saying i am concerned that we have all our eggs in the daddytorgo basket, and that the wolves could be using you to try to hide themselves.

second, no, i havent sent you (or anyone else) any of my 4 pms...havent seen a reason to, or a value it in...nothing can be confirmed, and it has been my experience that more problems come from sharing with someone you dont trust 100% than not sharing at all (a fact that you have proven two nights in a row)

You don't trust DT? Or do you mean you don't necessarily trust him to make the right decisions?

Personally, I've been using my PMs to tell people my character's name, in case anyone else tries to use it or something. I'm not sure there will be much use in it, but I don't know what else to do with them. And I don't know what I'll do when I have sent it to everyone -- I guess by then, I might as well have just said it in the thread. Yeah, it's not the best method in the world or anything, but I guess this way I don't feel like I'm wasting my ability, plus I get to unnecessarily clog BK and hoops's inbox!

DaddyTorgo · 07-09-2009, 08:56 AM

actually the way i explained it initially, the wording was poor.

Passacaglia · 07-09-2009, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

well then my math on the % is off, cuz your numbers are not correct (i don't want to narrow it down too much more). i have high trust in between somewhere between 0-6 people

I'm not too worried about the numbers themselves, rather the fact that you give this group "high trust" then add caveats to a good number of them, saying that you could see them being wolves. Probably just semantics, but I wouldn't call that "high trust" personally.

DaddyTorgo · 07-09-2009, 08:58 AM

hey sal - are you a member of the conspiracy?

DaddyTorgo · 07-09-2009, 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

I'm not too worried about the numbers themselves, rather the fact that you give this group "high trust" then add caveats to a good number of them, saying that you could see them being wolves. Probably just semantics, but I wouldn't call that "high trust" personally.

yes, semantics. there's a high-trust list and then that smaller list of 3. call them "medium-high trust" if you will.

DaddyTorgo · 07-09-2009, 09:09 AM

it's 10am - i am probably heading out around 1:30. I'll have my phone and I can be online and post from my phone, but I will also be socializing and typing on my phone, so my activity will be reduced. But, mindful of the importance of my role in the game I will try to check in at least like...once an hour in case there are PM's or important questions.

ISiddiqui · 07-09-2009, 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

yes, semantics. there's a high-trust list and then that smaller list of 3. call them "medium-high trust" if you will.

I think I may need a flowchart

DaddyTorgo · 07-09-2009, 09:16 AM

Danny · 07-09-2009, 09:17 AM

DT, what are your thoughts on PurdueBrad? Right now, if we have no new information, we learn the most from his lynch as he has been involved in two votes thus far. I would have liked to seen him scanned, but if that's not possible then lynching him would make sense.

Danny · 07-09-2009, 09:21 AM

Today we have 18 players left, so we need 8 votes for 40%.

DaddyTorgo · 07-09-2009, 09:24 AM

@saldana PM - okay *nods and moves you around on my list*

Passacaglia · 07-09-2009, 09:28 AM

Whatever happened to that 36 hours vs. once per calendar week thing? I remember someone mentioning that the 36 hours could be made up, since it was an example given in the first post. And since the once per calendar week guy ended up being good, should we look at the 36 hour guy? I should add that I know who it is, since they told me in a reply to a PM that I sent.

DaddyTorgo · 07-09-2009, 09:28 AM

my thoughts on PB. he has claimed a sort of "slow developing" role, so i'm willing to give him a little more time. he's definately not on my high-trust list though. but nor do i feel he is going to yield us a wolf.

that being said, i'm not going to throw myself under the bus for him and defend his innocence to the death, because i don't know for certain.

is that clearly-unclear enough?

DaddyTorgo · 07-09-2009, 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

Whatever happened to that 36 hours vs. once per calendar week thing? I remember someone mentioning that the 36 hours could be made up, since it was an example given in the first post. And since the once per calendar week guy ended up being good, should we look at the 36 hour guy? I should add that I know who it is, since they told me in a reply to a PM that I sent.

negative. that person is okay in my book.

Passacaglia · 07-09-2009, 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

negative. that person is okay in my book.

Sounds good. I figure it's a weird skill to have made up, anyway.

Passacaglia · 07-09-2009, 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

negative. that person is okay in my book.

Anyway, seeing that phrase again made me think back to something I saw in the evening. I think you replied to a PM's in the thread, saying "you're okay in my book" a few times. Are these people asking you if you trust them? Cuz that just sets off alarm bells to me.

DaddyTorgo · 07-09-2009, 09:34 AM

note - saldana never responded to my question about whether he was a member of the conspiracy. would be curious to know about that.

Danny · 07-09-2009, 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

Anyway, seeing that phrase again made me think back to something I saw in the evening. I think you replied to a PM's in the thread, saying "you're okay in my book" a few times. Are these people asking you if you trust them? Cuz that just sets off alarm bells to me.

One of the PM's was mine, I don't know about the others, but I never asked DT if he trusted me (I just assumed he did since I am so cuddly

), but he replied that he did.

DaddyTorgo · 07-09-2009, 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

Anyway, seeing that phrase again made me think back to something I saw in the evening. I think you replied to a PM's in the thread, saying "you're okay in my book" a few times. Are these people asking you if you trust them? Cuz that just sets off alarm bells to me.

if i recall what you're thinking about, the answer is "not always." sometimes it was (and in those cases i would bet my jack-bauer life on it), and sometimes it was just deliberate over-use of that phrase to try to throw wolves off, and it essentially meant "thanks for the the PM. you're right about that" or "okay...i believe what you said."

Passacaglia · 07-09-2009, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danny

One of the PM's was mine, I don't know about the others, but I never asked DT if he trusted me (I just assumed he did since I am so cuddly

), but he replied that he did.

What? The cuddly ones are the ones you have to fear the most? Haven't you ever seen Gremlins?!

DaddyTorgo · 07-09-2009, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danny

One of the PM's was mine, I don't know about the others, but I never asked DT if he trusted me (I just assumed he did since I am so cuddly

), but he replied that he did.

important to note that that's a generic phrase i've been throwing out to people though - it doesn't imply where along the scale of trust they are. for all you know (and you too Danny) you could be the bottom man on the "medium-high" trust list.

Danny · 07-09-2009, 09:39 AM

That's true, but I am not wet

Danny · 07-09-2009, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

important to note that that's a generic phrase i've been throwing out to people though - it doesn't imply where along the scale of trust they are. for all you know (and you too Danny) you could be the bottom man on the "medium-high" trust list.

This is true, as I think it's been said for about half the players

Passacaglia · 07-09-2009, 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

important to note that that's a generic phrase i've been throwing out to people though - it doesn't imply where along the scale of trust they are. for all you know (and you too Danny) you could be the bottom man on the "medium-high" trust list.

That's fine. I'm not concerned too much with where I am on the list -- in fact, I'm probably not medium-high, let alone high. I was just worried that if people were asking you if you trusted them, it seemed to me like they were a little too excited to slip into getting your trust without the rest of the gang here having a say. But as long as you're keeping an eye on it, I'm cool.

path12 · 07-09-2009, 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

if i recall what you're thinking about, the answer is "not always." sometimes it was (and in those cases i would bet my jack-bauer life on it), and sometimes it was just deliberate over-use of that phrase to try to throw wolves off, and it essentially meant "thanks for the the PM. you're right about that" or "okay...i believe what you said."

Good, I'm glad Pass asked that because I had the same misgivings.

path12 · 07-09-2009, 09:44 AM

I was the other advisor Alan picked, BTW.

Passacaglia · 07-09-2009, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by path12

Good, I'm glad Pass asked that because I had the same misgivings.

Oh yeah, path. The answer to your question is 'no' -- what you said doesn't really tell me anything (maybe it would if I watched the show), but I can't think of a reason I need to know anything more than that, anyway.

Passacaglia · 07-09-2009, 09:47 AM

(and sorry for the late reply)

The Jackal · 07-09-2009, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

note - saldana never responded to my question about whether he was a member of the conspiracy. would be curious to know about that.

Even after sending you a PM? Seems like an obvious question that you know what the answer will be (unless you've got some sort of super lie detecting). I'll admit my suspicion on sal is only because he's voted for me twice, the second being mostly a hidden vote since the runs were on other people yesterday. But he's done nothing to convince me that he isn't at least suspicious. Don't know that I'll go there with a vote yet, but he's in my considerations.

path12 · 07-09-2009, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

Oh yeah, path. The answer to your question is 'no' -- what you said doesn't really tell me anything (maybe it would if I watched the show), but I can't think of a reason I need to know anything more than that, anyway.

Gotcha. Appreciate the reply.

Autumn · 07-09-2009, 10:01 AM

I'd say if Saldana is refusing to send his role info to DT that's mighty suspicious. We know the wolves only have a few fake roles to hide behind, some of them have to be trying to avoid revealing. I'll have to look back but I seem to remember his votes being kind of odd too.

So yeah, I"m back. I don't think I've seen any voting at all (well except for me I guess last night). I'd be inclined at this moment to go for Saldana or nfg. I'm ggoing to look at the votes on me last night and see who might have seemed eager to take advantage of a runaway lynch.

The Jackal · 07-09-2009, 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Autumn

I'd say if Saldana is refusing to send his role info to DT that's mighty suspicious. We know the wolves only have a few fake roles to hide behind, some of them have to be trying to avoid revealing. I'll have to look back but I seem to remember his votes being kind of odd too.

So yeah, I"m back. I don't think I've seen any voting at all (well except for me I guess last night). I'd be inclined at this moment to go for Saldana or nfg. I'm ggoing to look at the votes on me last night and see who might have seemed eager to take advantage of a runaway lynch.

I think DT indicated that he'd received a PM from saldana and then "moved him around the trust list" but then afterwards said that sal had not specifically said he wasn't part of the conspiracy. Which should really be meaningless.

DaddyTorgo · 07-09-2009, 10:03 AM

@10:59am - *nods* thanks. that's all i needed to know.

saldana · 07-09-2009, 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

note - saldana never responded to my question about whether he was a member of the conspiracy. would be curious to know about that.

uh...no, i am not a member of the conspiracy.

The Jackal · 07-09-2009, 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saldana

uh...no, i am not a member of the conspiracy.

I am shocked!

DaddyTorgo · 07-09-2009, 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Jackal

I think DT indicated that he'd received a PM from saldana and then "moved him around the trust list" but then afterwards said that sal had not specifically said he wasn't part of the conspiracy. Which should really be meaningless.

no i didn't move him around on my trust list. i hope i didn't say that. i moved him around on my little "list of who's who and claims what sort of powers" and such.

like there's a group of "claims powers that we can't publicly verify ever" and a group of "these people have powers we can publicly test" and others.

DaddyTorgo · 07-09-2009, 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saldana

uh...no, i am not a member of the conspiracy.

thanks sal. that's helpful.

The Jackal · 07-09-2009, 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

no i didn't move him around on my trust list. i hope i didn't say that. i moved him around on my little "list of who's who and claims what sort of powers" and such.

like there's a group of "claims powers that we can't publicly verify ever" and a group of "these people have powers we can publicly test" and others.

Ah, I think you simply said "moves you on the list", so I inferred trust list. Thanks for clarifying.

saldana · 07-09-2009, 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Jackal

I think DT indicated that he'd received a PM from saldana and then "moved him around the trust list" but then afterwards said that sal had not specifically said he wasn't part of the conspiracy. Which should really be meaningless.

this is 100% correct, and i appreciate that you helped me out here considering i have voted you twice...yesterday's wasnt meant to be "hidden" as so much as i didnt have a chance to follow along during the day and had no clue where the votes were going, so i punted..

as far as specifically saying i was not in the conspiracy, i didnt state that in my PM, but even if i were, I would still say that i wasn't. [scratches head]

DaddyTorgo · 07-09-2009, 10:08 AM

my little "cheat sheet" of role-based info if you will (names omitted).

The following people have claimed powers that we cannot publicly see the effects of -

The following people claimed powers that would be difficult to test publicly:

The following people pushed quickly (via PM) to use their powers on Autumn (perhaps to help us lynch a villager and then say "oh was just trying to help you jack" all innocently, but perhaps it’s nothing):
The following have powers that could be tested and the results could be publicly observed: NOTE - I ACTUALLY NEED TO BREAK THIS INTO 2 "publicly observed and clearly not a wolf" and "publicly observed and still could be a wolf"

The Jackal · 07-09-2009, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saldana

this is 100% correct, and i appreciate that you helped me out here considering i have voted you twice...yesterday's wasnt meant to be "hidden" as so much as i didnt have a chance to follow along during the day and had no clue where the votes were going, so i punted..

as far as specifically saying i was not in the conspiracy, i didnt state that in my PM, but even if i were, I would still say that i wasn't. [scratches head]

I do remember both of your votes being early on in the day, which makes it tough to analyze. Day 1 aside, throwing an early vote and then not moving it and having very few posts gives me very little read on you.

And yeah.. I'd be very surprised if anyone came out and said, "Hey Jack, I'm bad!" so.. I wasn't expecting anything to come from that.

DaddyTorgo · 07-09-2009, 10:12 AM

@11:09 - thanks. figured you'd know what to do with that.

Telle · 07-09-2009, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Jackal

And yeah.. I'd be very surprised if anyone came out and said, "Hey Jack, I'm bad!" so.. I wasn't expecting anything to come from that.

My guess is someone has a soothsayer role and DT wanted it used on saldana.

DaddyTorgo · 07-09-2009, 10:17 AM

are you all interested in looking at that "claims a role that cannot be publicly verified" grouping?

07-09-2009, 08:49 AM	#1251
DaddyTorgo Hall Of Famer Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Massachusetts	i have thoughts on everyone else in the game, with some sort of roadmap i have probably somewhere around ~40% of the remaining people in the game on a "high trust" list - of those 1 is lower than the others, 1 i could see being a wolf and using their power to buy my trust, 1 could be the same way but the chances are much smaller IMO, and the rest are totally clear. 2 people have claimed powers that we cannot verify publicly (or me privately for that matter). 1 person i haven't heard from all. 3 people have roles it would be difficult (but not impossible) to test publicly. 2 people pushed quickly (via PM) to use their powers against autumn last night (might be nothing but might be something). the rest of the people in the game there are conceivably ways for them to demonstrate their power publicly and move onto the high-trust list. __________________ Get bent whoever hacked my pw and changed my signature.

07-09-2009, 08:51 AM	#1252
DaddyTorgo Hall Of Famer Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Massachusetts	i wouldn't share the complete picture and all thoughts with everyone on the "totally clear" list though. just to be clear. __________________ Get bent whoever hacked my pw and changed my signature.

07-09-2009, 08:54 AM	#1255
DaddyTorgo Hall Of Famer Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Massachusetts	so my thinking today would be to go after the person who i've heard nothing from or one of the two people who have roles whose effects cannot be observed publicly. __________________ Get bent whoever hacked my pw and changed my signature.

07-09-2009, 08:56 AM	#1258
DaddyTorgo Hall Of Famer Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Massachusetts	actually the way i explained it initially, the wording was poor. __________________ Get bent whoever hacked my pw and changed my signature.

07-09-2009, 08:58 AM	#1260
DaddyTorgo Hall Of Famer Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Massachusetts	hey sal - are you a member of the conspiracy? __________________ Get bent whoever hacked my pw and changed my signature.

07-09-2009, 09:09 AM	#1262
DaddyTorgo Hall Of Famer Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Massachusetts	it's 10am - i am probably heading out around 1:30. I'll have my phone and I can be online and post from my phone, but I will also be socializing and typing on my phone, so my activity will be reduced. But, mindful of the importance of my role in the game I will try to check in at least like...once an hour in case there are PM's or important questions. __________________ Get bent whoever hacked my pw and changed my signature.

07-09-2009, 09:16 AM	#1264
DaddyTorgo Hall Of Famer Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Massachusetts	LOL __________________ Get bent whoever hacked my pw and changed my signature.

07-09-2009, 09:17 AM	#1265
Danny Head Coach Join Date: Jul 2001	DT, what are your thoughts on PurdueBrad? Right now, if we have no new information, we learn the most from his lynch as he has been involved in two votes thus far. I would have liked to seen him scanned, but if that's not possible then lynching him would make sense.

07-09-2009, 09:21 AM	#1266
Danny Head Coach Join Date: Jul 2001	Today we have 18 players left, so we need 8 votes for 40%.

07-09-2009, 09:24 AM	#1267
DaddyTorgo Hall Of Famer Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Massachusetts	@saldana PM - okay nods and moves you around on my list __________________ Get bent whoever hacked my pw and changed my signature.

07-09-2009, 09:28 AM	#1268
Passacaglia Coordinator Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Big Ten Country	Whatever happened to that 36 hours vs. once per calendar week thing? I remember someone mentioning that the 36 hours could be made up, since it was an example given in the first post. And since the once per calendar week guy ended up being good, should we look at the 36 hour guy? I should add that I know who it is, since they told me in a reply to a PM that I sent.

07-09-2009, 09:28 AM	#1269
DaddyTorgo Hall Of Famer Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Massachusetts	my thoughts on PB. he has claimed a sort of "slow developing" role, so i'm willing to give him a little more time. he's definately not on my high-trust list though. but nor do i feel he is going to yield us a wolf. that being said, i'm not going to throw myself under the bus for him and defend his innocence to the death, because i don't know for certain. is that clearly-unclear enough? __________________ Get bent whoever hacked my pw and changed my signature.

07-09-2009, 09:34 AM	#1273
DaddyTorgo Hall Of Famer Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Massachusetts	note - saldana never responded to my question about whether he was a member of the conspiracy. would be curious to know about that. __________________ Get bent whoever hacked my pw and changed my signature.

07-09-2009, 09:39 AM	#1278
Danny Head Coach Join Date: Jul 2001	That's true, but I am not wet

07-09-2009, 09:44 AM	#1282
path12 Coordinator Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Seattle, WA	I was the other advisor Alan picked, BTW. __________________ We have always been at war with Eastasia.

07-09-2009, 09:47 AM	#1284
Passacaglia Coordinator Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Big Ten Country	(and sorry for the late reply)

07-09-2009, 10:01 AM	#1287
Autumn Head Coach Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Bath, ME	I'd say if Saldana is refusing to send his role info to DT that's mighty suspicious. We know the wolves only have a few fake roles to hide behind, some of them have to be trying to avoid revealing. I'll have to look back but I seem to remember his votes being kind of odd too. So yeah, I"m back. I don't think I've seen any voting at all (well except for me I guess last night). I'd be inclined at this moment to go for Saldana or nfg. I'm ggoing to look at the votes on me last night and see who might have seemed eager to take advantage of a runaway lynch.

07-09-2009, 10:03 AM	#1289
DaddyTorgo Hall Of Famer Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Massachusetts	@10:59am - nods thanks. that's all i needed to know. __________________ Get bent whoever hacked my pw and changed my signature.

07-09-2009, 10:08 AM	#1296
DaddyTorgo Hall Of Famer Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Massachusetts	my little "cheat sheet" of role-based info if you will (names omitted). The following people have claimed powers that we cannot publicly see the effects of - The following people claimed powers that would be difficult to test publicly: The following people pushed quickly (via PM) to use their powers on Autumn (perhaps to help us lynch a villager and then say "oh was just trying to help you jack" all innocently, but perhaps it’s nothing): The following have powers that could be tested and the results could be publicly observed: NOTE - I ACTUALLY NEED TO BREAK THIS INTO 2 "publicly observed and clearly not a wolf" and "publicly observed and still could be a wolf" __________________ Get bent whoever hacked my pw and changed my signature.

07-09-2009, 10:12 AM	#1298
DaddyTorgo Hall Of Famer Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Massachusetts	@11:09 - thanks. figured you'd know what to do with that. __________________ Get bent whoever hacked my pw and changed my signature.

07-09-2009, 10:17 AM	#1300
DaddyTorgo Hall Of Famer Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Massachusetts	are you all interested in looking at that "claims a role that cannot be publicly verified" grouping? __________________ Get bent whoever hacked my pw and changed my signature.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)