The user known as 'philosphical' is the same person as the user known as 'GhostWriter.'

The user "TheLwerd" Seems to have unmountable evidence on me being another user by the name of GhostWriter. I will be arguing against this position. Her arguments and my refutations are as follows: 1. I defended myself against a claim that I was multi-accounting, when the thread could have been intended for the moderator Phil instead of me. http://www.debate.org... ------ This is a rather ridiculous argument, because askbob posted the forum topic directly after Vi_veri persecuted me for the same exact thing. Now I responded naturally confused because I am not the user ghostWriter, and a random forum topic being created over it naturally appeared to me as confusing. If you were getting accused falsely for having a second account, that you indeed did not have, would you too not get defensive? ------ 2. I called out three of her mafia members in ORP day phase one, and she believes it is because I am GhostWriter. http://www.debate.org... ------ I was unaware of the fact that my mafia predictions were correct until just recently. After my being lynched off on day phase one I lost interest in the for a few weeks, never bothering to check the game results. Turns out the three I called out were exactly correct. Now Lwerd doesn't find the mistake she made in defending ghostwriter, and jumping back and forth between KRF, proper evidence to lead them all three to being mafia. Her mistake was clearly obvious, however. I'm going to go ahead and re-iterate a simplified version of how Lwerd screwed herself over in that game. First check the third to last post here where Nags suggests lynching GW. http://www.debate.org...... ------- Second post on this page Lwerd seemingly ignores most of the crucial stuff in nags post and instantly jumps to "wait, why GW?". Why care? http://www.debate.org...... -------- Two posts beneath that (same link) Nags notes that it was just a suggestion. ------- Fourth post down in this link, GW gets really defensive even after suspicion on her died. http://www.debate.org...... -------- Right beneath it (same link) KRF too jumps to protect GW from nags, even when nags said it was just a suggestion and dropped it long ago. ------ Now I jump in two post below the last one, and call L out for using her logic of lynching new players, even though feverish and GW contributed very little, and she makes absolutely no reference to them, only reference to nags for picking up suspicion on GW. Then I ask her why she cared so much about GW and not KRF. ----- Fourth post down Leaf rod notes that this is normal of nags, so why was it brung up? Meaning he was one of the people like me who saw how ridiculous it was for them to jump to her defence. http://www.debate.org...... ------ Two posts beneath that (same link) Lwerd makes the classic defence of her just casually asking the question. Then BOOM out of no where she starts saying she has not reason to suspect KRF. Wait a second. Weren't you just prosecuting him a little while ago? This is what made me catch that she was protecting KRF as well. ------- Now I bring up how L accuses wonder woman of being noobish and none of the other noobs. Big fail on her part. Then I bring up how unusual it was for her to question that randomly. Next I bring up How she accuses me of protecting nags even though I was voting to lynch him, and I was still convinced that it could very well just be a theory, thus finding it odd that she would say that. (first post) http://www.debate.org...... -------- Third post down GW makes lame excuse as to why she is not mafia, saying that I was accusing her of being mafia for not posting. And I never said that. She pretty much gave Lwerd and herself up right here making it blatantly obvious there both mafia. (third post down) --------- Same link next one down, L says in her third paragraph that nags made a silly reference to GW. Okay so if it was so silly then why did you care? More suspicion. Next paragraph down L says that I was accusing her of protecting KRF and GW. This I got a little confused by seeing as I did not mention she was protecting KRF. It seemed obvious to me at this point that she was essentially doing just that: Protecting them both. Which she had no need to do seeing as I never even referenced her protecting him indicating her being mafia. Another fail. -------- Post below that nags explains the obvious, that is was just a minor suggestion that Lwerd made into a bigger deal than it needed to be. ------- Post below that you randomly start going along with your jumping on nags GW theory. WTF? Again reference me and nags being on a team when I'm still voting to lynch him, and only using your post as a theory. ------- Post below that promises to role reveal. Then doesn't. Nice. ------ Same arguments continue for a couple pages. ------ Third to last post, third paragraph, L randomly says she was persecuting KRF even though she just defended him. WTF?? http://www.debate.org...... ------- Argument continues. L fake role reveals. Why? Idk. Nobody was asking her to, and after being called out for being mafia, she must have decided she was screwed if she didn't, even though I was the only one to catch on to her mistake (besides nags). http://www.debate.org...... ------ I Point out VI because she has been on your side pretty much the whole time and doesn't directly address the situation, when she tries to dissolve it earlier. (see above link). At this point however I really doubted that she was, I was just throwing the option out on the table. ------ Lwerd starts the Phil bandwagon. http://www.debate.org...... ------ Pretty much at this point, No one has decided to read the dispute and every one goes along with the bandwagon lynch and lynches me. Meanwhile me and L's argument continues. ------- All this proves why L has pretty much given herself up as mafia and why I called her KRF and GW out. Pretty detailed and easy to follow for all you who don't like to read alot, but what the basic info. ------ 3. I am not too detailed as to this information, but apparently last night GhostWriter was on face book being interrogated by the user Vi_veri. Now me and GhostWriter live in the same state and city. Vi_veri found a friend of Ghostwriter, the same as a relative of mine. ------ Now given that we live in both the same state. Same city. Probably very close. How unlikely is it that we may have a friend that's the same? It is in fact very likely. Now I have no information on to how my relative and knows the user GhostWriter in the slightest. However having the same friend as someone on face book isn't too harsh of a load of evidence that the person is essentially the same person. ----- I am sure my opponent has a bunch more arguments cooked up and ready to present that I may have missed. I think the three of them that I have presented of hers however are her most pressing ones, that I have indeed refuted to the best of my ability. As theLwerd said in the opening round, I have been a prominent member on this site for over a year and would never make another account to up myself, and have offered several different times to do whatever is in my ability to prove my innocence at having one account, and one account only. I stand by this statement, and have thus far. As of the moment I have nothing further to add and will await my opponent to refute. But to conclude: I know the probability of anyone believing me is very slight, and I understand this. Me being in your shoes, I would likely notice the strange conveniences as well. All I can say is to try to look at yourself from my point of view, and ask yourself what you yourself would do in the situation of being accused harshly for something you didn't do. With that said, I rest my case. -Philosophical.