I'm flipflopping about
Kit at the moment. Her comment on the
Bom-Zil-Lottie triangle yesterDay didn't sit right with me, but that may have been me seeing things. Her long posts yesterDay and toDay look fair enough at first sight, balanced and independent (as in agreeing with
Greenie's points against
Nog but not with
Zil piggybacking on them), but things have changed a lot over Night:
YesterDay:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Kit #85
Inzil's vote for Nog seems like a piggyback on Greenie's suspicious. Aside from Nog, she's made the best case for a lynch candidate and it's not even that strong. (I don't expect any to be that strong toDAy though)[...]
Greenie makes a decent point about Nog
|
ToDay:
[QUOTE0Kit #106]Greenie puts words into Nog's mouth and Lottie's mouth in one sentence. I'm impressed.
[/QUOTE]
Referring to this:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Greenie
Lottie never said "never mind that person" but rather "never mind that particular point against that person" - which is something an innocent can afford to say.
|
I suppose you could call "never mind that particular point..." putting words in
Lottie's mouth, but "never mind that person" is a verbatim
Nog-quote.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Kit #106
Ok, Greenie said a lot without saying a lot. She jumps on a comment about Nog from Pitch that was pretty bad for a suspicion, even by Day 1 standards. Then she twists what Lottie says by twisting what Nog said.
|
So yes, I know, wolves can be consistent while innocents may need to change their minds, but I'd still like to hear how "making a decent point" and "the best case for a lynch candidate" became "said a lot with saying a lot" and twisting words? Especially as
Kit seems to me to be largely echoing
Nog's self defense.
(x-ed with a load)