Something about the
Legate of Nan Curunír:
I don't agree with his interpretation of
Ang at all. Is his main point that his in-character stuff could have been shorter? Well, surely it could have, but
Ang had more actual arguments inside it than others did. He's accusing
Ang for things he himself has been doing.
In fact,
Anguirel is the only one whom I would dare to declare innocentish at this early time.
I wonder: Why does
Legate emphasise that he came to the same conclusion as
Six independantly?
But I guess it's premature to go and construct any links between people (which Legate passionately does). Maybe I'm paranoid because these two are my main suspects for now.
Legate's case of
the Saucepan Man looks almost constructed to me.
Lommy and I jumped on
Six equally fast.
Legate is founding far too much of his analysis upon
Six's innocence, and if his ways are innocent, then they're misguided. In fact, as others have pointed out already, this is not so unlikely.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Legate, about me
...when I was innocent and him as well, we were pretty much agreeing on many things.
|
Didn't I end up lynching you in that game? There must've been some things we didn't agree on.
Then in the end, he apologises to people who might think he's offensive, because he is just playing Saruman. In the same paragraph, he accuses me, the anonymous
orc, of being offensive. I can't see the sense in this.
I will probably vote for
Legate or
Six today, or maybe
Volo for good reasons that others have already stated. I really wouldn't like to lose
Ang today.