I'm going to start at the beginning. By putting my name, "The man. The legend." in such bold terms, my reputation and profile are raised greatly. This dovetails in with a couple of Van's arguments, but it also seems to be the perfect one-liner retort to my own snarky behavior. Compliment me, and by your compliments undo me.
Oh, the meta analysis. It's been split into simply naming the word counts of all relevant posts, counting up my actions and comparing them, and putting the two together to analyze vote posts' word count. The suggestion that I may have been busy during the HP mafia abnormality has relevance here. See, if Van had gone to the extra length of analyzing how my posts are scattered through the entirety of the day, Van could infer that I am really bloody tired, and it might explain my prickly behavior what with the one-liners and general dismissive attitude. Indeed, this isn't very conducive to long, elaborate posts. Earlier in the game, I suffered worse from this problem and it roundly explains my abnormal word count. May I mention that I've brought my level of rest up once before in the middle of that "quiet period"? For the vote analysis, Is one more FoS than usual really that troublesome? Remember that FoS's are cheap and can be made without having an effect on anything, and very often people will be able to be seen making multiple FoS's in one post. An FoS is nothing more than a tool: it lets others know where your suspicions lie in a succinct manner. Further, is the time that they are made at really a statistic that should be torn apart? Wouldn't you like mafia players to be encouraged to finger the suspicious whenever they acquire suspicions? That tactic, if adopted more often (as in your suggested automatic mafia parser), would likely have a secondary damaging effect on the town. Why, scum could latch onto those statistics as a way of pushing the lynch of those who deviate from the norm as well. As to the word count on voting posts, one would think that more justification for votes (when considered on its own, of course) is a good thing? Can't a person's playstyle evolve with time, or circumstances? (In particular, wouldn't saving my breath for just the accusations might be a natural adaptation to a lack of sleep? Oh, sleep, how I miss you...)
Leaving the metagame behind, though... My tone in the fourth post can be explained by the exertion I went through trying to think whilst sleepy. I was irritable and itching for something to rip into. This also explains the comments. The hostility to the rolespec is caused by a third factor: I forgot what the mod's post said due to my tired state, as I later acknowledged. In post #6, I commented on my bleary eyes. As to internet sarcasm, it's sometimes easier to spew sarcasm than interpret it. It was so in that case. I have since adjusted, however, so you can rest assured that I will now properly laugh at any jokes you have to share with us.
In post #9, cleaning up the mud whilst actually referring to the act is semi-flippant and so was the comment about there being no joke in mafia. Now, I'm not one to criticize the flippant now, as I've made extensive use of such a tone since, but back then, it grated a bit. Also, the conclusion of the rolespec is actually basic mafia setup and didn't seem to bear repeating. Post #10 was in response to RoadieRich's post, not TLC. I had actually been away for a few hours to try and catch up on sleep. I should've quoted him. Suggesting a player-related aberration in the vote count, as in post #11, seems to me like reasonable role speculation: neither meaningless nor akin to a bastard moddery suggestion. At post #12, the misrepresentation you claim was me just continuing post-by-post and with my characteristic short-term mafia memory. I remembered that TLC was playing dubiously. I looked back through a few posts, and saw dubious posts up to the ninth most recent. I've justified disapproving of the three posts you mentioned, at least in my mind. Your thoughts on #13 go back to the theory you put forth. Needless to say, it's not a theory I'm convinced of. 
The "slightly town, slightly scum" posts of #14 and #20 can be explained by the fact that I'm cautious. You see, there are a few players who aren't terribly bright and I'm taking out an insurance policy on their roles, if they happen to be important. If being pessimistic in that respect is scummy, then I can't help you. At post #15, I will say that I've had my good moments, but the bad are more numerous and seem to be the rule rather than the exception. Life and Death still resulted in my quick death, I'd like to remind you. For post #16, I will say that I try to have fun while playing a game. By the way, how much fun are you having? You seem to have sunk a lot of time into that post and I'd hate to be impairing your ability to enjoy the game. As to the ponies of post #17, I apologize. I assumed that there were a lot of FaiDites around and that it would quickly be explained and we could all have a jolly laugh about it. In post #18, I felt offended. When I'm offended, I'm more likely to retaliate than move on. I'll buy your disagreement about what constitutes content as a difference of opinion. In #19, I will say that anything that can be analyzed could be considered content. In that case, saying I hadn't posted any is a mischaracterization. In post #21, I agree about suspecting the same people not being a scum tell. I just thought it was a useful note. It kinda morphed into something other than plain notes. In the fifth note thing, I examined the posts out of context and didn't realize how that related to me or its proper relation to the votes. In post #24, while that seems to be correct on the face of things, the one-liners generally are a weak defense instead of a nonexistent defense. Perhaps we're using different definitions of defense, but anything that takes the heat off works as defense. It may not be kind, it may not be palatable, it may not offer much information, but it's defense. Even then, the post you picked out to say that in contained a phrase that assumes that I'm not very devious. That's information. In post #25, it might not have been deflection, but it may certainly have been biased due to the way he was going at me. Besides, I never said that such analysis wasn't valuable, I just said that they couldn't be trusted. You're mischaracterizing me again. In post #26... convenient distancing, my ass. Your analysis of that post is predicated on your assumptions. His vote on me looked flimsy, so I thought I'd take a look at him. Seeing that he wasn't posting much, I wanted to hear what his excuse would be. Besides, there's no guarantee that I'd find his excuse to be satisfactory; it'd have to have been a good one, but he didn't even give an excuse. In post #29, I was clarifying a muddy word. With "ninja'd", people mostly mean in addition that they agree with what was said, and that wasn't what I meant. Besides, it's right on the heels of a post with much content. In post #31, some things are more guttish than others. Catching somebody in an inconsistency is less guttish than not liking somebody's choice of words, as an example. Why, for a while, I generally thought TGB was scummy in most games simply on the basis of having a prickly personality. Finally, post #31. I was pointing out the fact that you were beginning to make assumptions about what I was and wasn't likely to do. Oh, and the caustic thing... half of this game has been spent focusing on me. You can't say that about other games at the time I was being picked apart in them. That gets really annoying, and I lost my cool for a bit. My bad.In conclusion: Damn.
