Yuku free message boards

darknight, in your response you gave zero evidence that, to quote you, "...best social player in survivor history (Nat)."

If you like simply tossing out statements like that as some defense of Nat and don't expect someone to say, basically, WTF, then you haven't been around here very much. Based on your total post count of less than 30, I suppose that's true. This is a place where statements like the above aren't simply accepted as "well, that's sure an opinion, all right." We like the give and take of a round table discussion. If you feel no need to defend it with any more evidence than a couple of quotes throughout the season, that's kind of disappointing.

Perhaps I was giving you too much credence by assuming you were serious. If so, my apologies, because your response gave zero evidence to support your claim, so there was apparently nothing serious about it.

It's good to hear you haven't been spoiled. But face it - a lot of people suddenly showed up here who write like they've been around the block a few dozen times on Sucks yet have miniscule post counts. And when their sudden appearance coincided with murmurs here of spoilers, it is completely natural to assume some are ghosties. Some of your more brazen posts (like the one quoted above) are like ghostie fingerprints. But it's nice to know you aren't a ghostie. At all.

You wrote, "So you dont know who i am .....i dont know who you are and nor does anyone else. And whats this 'ghostie' stuff. I am a member of this board just like you...nothing more and nothing less. I guess you think you are part of a special group who, the A-list, who own this forum or this thread and only the special ones can analyse, make comments or give opinions since thats only for the 'special' members? And the rest of us are less than human and become 'ghosties'?"

A "ghostie" is a term, like sock-puppet (which I prefer) to describe a person who has posted on Sucks using another name, but created this new name to hide the fact that they have opined elsewhere. They like to think they're brand-spanking new to edgic and sucks, and to hide previous posts that would make it obvious they were spoiled or otherwise. The new name is a ghost, a cypher, a sock-puppet to hide their true background. If you are claiming you have never posted under any other moniker on Sucks, okay (Methinks he doth protest too much.)

( If you're truly brand new, may I invite you to read some early edgic threads, like S9 (on the last page of the spec folder). You'll see how this thread used to be, and then you can compare/contrast to how it is now. A rather large difference in tone.

But know this: Nobody is stopping you from making comments. When comments are foolish I will either respond or ignore them, and I must admit I thought your "best social player ever" claim notably fatuous. Nobody is denying you the right to make whatever comment you wish. You are doing the classic hurt puppy routine of confusing my response as a command to shut you up, or to lord over you somehow. Perhaps if my response made you think your initial post was indeed silly, and so you felt a bit chastened, you are confusing your own internal feelings with some sort of admonition from me to not post. That's not an uncommon reaction. And just like you, I will choose to respond, comment, or not respond as I feel. The fact I've been around here a while is irrelevant. There are new edgic'rs every year who bring a great deal of insight. Then there are those who don't.

You further opined, "You question my statement saying that is worse that Blake's claim Erik would vote for Mick becuase he liked Russell S his leader, so that someone transfers to the leader of a rival tribe in Mick??? You must be the one dillusional if you think that makes any logical sense!"

I shall try and make sense of this statement. I said, "Even Blake in his most vociferous proMark posts never wrote anything so insipid as this statement. If you're trying to out-Blake Blake, do it with more zest." Your response certainly fails the "zest" test, but I shall examine it nonetheless.

I concede your point: your statement about Nat is indeed insipid, but perhaps not quite as insipid as that one statement from Blake. His statement, though, didn't make any "best of all time" claim about Mick that you did about Natalie, so I'm more than willing to discuss with you why your Nat comment doesn't quite reach the level of insipidness of Blake's. They are both insipid, which apparently you concede. It is a tough call, but I'll give you a 9 on the insipid scale, and Blake a 9.1. Fair enough?

One thing you said that is actually reasonable, to wit: "If you truely believe in basic Edgic guidelines as you claimed then shouldnt we all be picking Jaison since he fits Edgic the best at the most basic level?"

Many of us make our edgic selections at the time of the merge. (Either 1st, 2nd or 3rd merge episode, right Oo?) As Warrior and others have noted, Jaison's edgic up to that point was not as strong as Mick's, and that's a sentiment I agree with, and accordingly have made my pick at that time for many seasons. It's really as simple as that. I picked Mick after Betsy was booted with Jaison #2, and at the merge saw no reason to elevate Jaison above Mick. Since then, Jaison's edit has been stronger (he is my personal fave to win, btw). But one of the points of edgic is to identify the winner at merge time, and the editors frequently bolster the edits of folks like Jaison to make them seem like very strong contenders after the merge. I happily concede that I could be wrong - heck, 3/4 of us will be wrong tomorrow night regardless! But by the "select at the merge" standard, MickPick stays. HTH.