sra ln !@#$%* fest

[kingzog]

 

Why do you hate MI so much?

 

MI attacked his ally for no reason in particular. You then got to walk away through the good graces of Kashmir.

 

Most folks would be annoyed.

 

In Sabcat's favor is that he has an actual, defensible reason for disliking MI. Most people dislike MI because you behave like a bunch of seven-year-olds bent on self-destruction. Not that this isn't defensible, but disliking you because you've demolished your own reputation vs. disliking you because you personally harmed someone are two very different things.

 

.... we wouldn't of agreed to the peace deal you voided.

 

have

 

Have

 

HAVE
 

[Sigrun Vapneir]

Please quit making me agree with kingzog people. That's just not fair.

[Sabcat]

 

Why do you hate MI so much?

 

 

I dislike MI because they're a bunch of offensive fools who got away with it, despite being terrible at fighting, because they had friends prepared to stick up for them. I don't hate them though, let's face it, they're done now, another footnote in the history of Bob.

[KingNeptune]

 

 

I dislike MI because they're a bunch of offensive fools who got away with it, despite being terrible at fighting, because they had friends prepared to stick up for them. I don't hate them though, let's face it, they're done now, another footnote in the history of Bob.

I find you, your post and you avatar offensive. But not your entire alliance. So why lump every single member of Minc under the same heading? Bit narrow minded IMHO. BTW my fighting isn't so bad either. Go count how many wars I've lost stats wise. (walsh will love the stats)

[Walshington]

 

Likewise.

 

1. This time you did fine. Several recent posts in this thread you do the entire thing as one big quote, with your text and that you are replying to mixed, and then you try to mark out your own words by color. Even when you catch all of them (and you often miss some) it still makes the whole thing very difficult for my old eyes to follow.

 

2. Where on earth did you get the idea I am am upset I cant get peace? That's ridiculous. I'm not at all upset about the war. I'm upset with the offensive propaganda and the personal attacks I've been subjected to, and that only motivates me to continue the war, not to offer you peace.

 

But the whole reason we had to fight in the first place was you attacking my allies. They're tough little squirts and they arent crying uncle yet either, but the fact is as you well know they had also been fighting better alliances for weeks before you hit them, and they did not all have CA level warchests. The fact that they have offered you white peace, even after the way you jerked us all around, and to the best of my knowledge left that on the table, is the closest thing to a sign of weakness out of them thus far. That's where peace comes into this. I have no desire whatsoever to give you peace, but I am only in this war to defend them, so if you want peace with me, you go through them. I've explained this to you before.

 

3. Pretty sure you know I was telling you the truth about not logging. And I was using the plural 'you' there - as disappointing as you were yourself, it was Xanth who put the final layer of wolverine urine on our relationship, as you know.

 

4. Don't remember the exact dates but we had a few productive conversations that were aimed at working this out peacefully as a favor to a mutual friend in the latter part of last month. You wound up walking away and saying you couldnt talk to me because I wouldnt agree with you that a few relatively insignificant details that were in your favor magically converted your aggression into defense. Then you sent Xanth...

 

Edit: to be clear, I am not saying that we actually got to the point of speaking of peace specifically, but the reason for the discussion had to have been obvious.

 

1.  I thought the colored text made it more clear.  The fact that I am now doing fine, however, only spritzes more rosewater on my already pleasant hindquarters.

 

2. So let's just lay this to rest then.  You are in no hurry for peace.  We are in no hurry for peace.  We should just stop posting about it.  If Meth doesn't want peace, he should stop as well -- after all, he's the one who brought it up.

 

3.  Wait -- are you saying your IRC server does not log your conversations?  I can provide that to you so you can identify the parts where I was "disappointing".  I hope it doesn't turn out like Meth pointing out that I said "he had zero allies".

 

4. "You wound up walking away and saying you couldnt talk to me because I wouldnt agree with you that a few relatively insignificant details that were in your favor magically converted your aggression into defense."  I did nothing of the sort.  That was a nation to nation exchange -- better go back and read that PM again. I think you'll find I said something quite different.

 

5.  Did you ever find that link where I threatened "eternal war"?

[Xanth]

He hasn't and he wont. Haven't you come to realize both him and meth have nothing to back back their words up with.

[Walshington]

I find you, your post and you avatar offensive. But not your entire alliance. So why lump every single member of Minc under the same heading? Bit narrow minded IMHO. BTW my fighting isn't so bad either. Go count how many wars I've lost stats wise. (walsh will love the stats)

 

I do love the stats -- they don't lie, taken in the proper context.  Your war with me, for example -- a statistical loss for you, easily explained by context. Fighting ability is a bit of a misnomer, anyway, at the nation level.  Organization at the alliance level takes a lot more strategy than launching attacks as a nation ruler.  Hence your statistical loss to me at the nation level actually represented a much larger victory for your coalition.

 

To the other point of your post -- you're right in theory, but opinions of an entire alliance are often affected by the acts of the alliance and its leaders. It is narrow minded, but it is also human nature.  I like RIA, mostly because Ogaden is such a swell guy. And I've never even talked to him.  

Edited July 7, 2015 by Walshington

[Sigrun Vapneir]

 

1.  I thought the colored text made it more clear.  The fact that I am now doing fine, however, only spritzes more rosewater on my already pleasant hindquarters.

 

 

More rosewater on the asses ass, please.  And thanks for posting legibly.

 

3.  Wait -- are you saying your IRC server does not log your conversations?  I can provide that to you so you can identify the parts where I was "disappointing".  I hope it doesn't turn out like Meth pointing out that I said "he had zero allies".

 

The irc server does not log anyones conversations, or at least it is not supposed to. It's the client. My client is not configured to log. I can save something specific if both parties want that to happen. I do not generally log conversations for later (editted?) release as part of a propaganda effort. I consider that rather rude actually.

 

 

5.  Did you ever find that link where I threatened "eternal war"?

 

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?/topic/126765-latest-war-war-chart-and-propaganda-and-such-thread/?p=3393652

 

First I heard of permawar from anyone involved here, aside from Lady Dakota. Guessing you have been spending a bit too much time with her for your own good.

 

That said, it seemed like a logical conclusion from earlier actions taken and words said that this was your real goal from the moment MInc got involved. 

 

 

 

I do love the stats -- they don't lie, taken in the proper context.  Your war with me, for example -- a statistical loss for you, easily explained by context.

 

Yes, exactly!

 

Stats do not lie *if you understand the context.*

 

I know it's frustrating for you when you guys work so hard to finally nose ahead of CA for a few days in terms of damage dealt and I turn around and talk about how bad you are at war, but think about the context here. CA has been at war since May 26th, you guys only got us after TSO and III% softened us up. My nation hadnt been out of anarchy yet when you dogpiled it. You've had so many advantages you have failed to get any traction at all out of. And the trend on that damage chart has passed it's worst point for us, it's headed right back up again.

Edited July 7, 2015 by Sigrun Vapneir

[smurthwaite]

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?/topic/126765-latest-war-war-chart-and-propaganda-and-such-thread/?p=3393652

 

First I heard of permawar from anyone involved here, aside from Lady Dakota. Guessing you have been spending a bit too much time with her for your own good.

 

That said, it seemed like a logical conclusion from earlier actions taken and words said that this was your real goal from the moment MInc got involved. 

 

Remember context is important.  That link does not in any way show Walsh threatening perma war.  Context.  Be aware of it.  The post in that link is in reference to your buddy Meth, who threatened perma war.  The reference was that it was easy for Meth to make the threat, but would be a bit more difficult to get people to follow him down that path.

 

So, any conclusion you might have made about Walsh's intentions, based on that post, could not have been in context, and therefore, could not have been logical.

[Sigrun Vapneir]

 

Remember context is important.  That link does not in any way show Walsh threatening perma war.  Context.  Be aware of it.  The post in that link is in reference to your buddy Meth, who threatened perma war.  The reference was that it was easy for Meth to make the threat, but would be a bit more difficult to get people to follow him down that path.

 

So, any conclusion you might have made about Walsh's intentions, based on that post, could not have been in context, and therefore, could not have been logical.

 

The *implication* he was trying to drop was that someone on our side had threatened it (and thus justified him turning it on us) - but again to the best of my knowledge that implication was entirely false. Nor is it even credible, frankly.  I know he dredged something up from methrage that out of context and viewed under just the right spin can be made to look like one, but that's really not good enough here.

 

In that light my conclusion was entirely logical.

 

 

 

 

I dislike MI because they're a bunch of offensive fools who got away with it, despite being terrible at fighting, because they had friends prepared to stick up for them. I don't hate them though, let's face it, they're done now, another footnote in the history of Bob.

 

I can understand where you are coming from. I dont agree with you, but I cant blame you, you know?

 

But from my point of view what Walsh has pulled here is considerably worse than any of the LH plans that I vetoed.

Edited July 7, 2015 by Sigrun Vapneir

[Walshington]

 

1) The irc server does not log anyones conversations, or at least it is not supposed to. It's the client. My client is not configured to log. I can save something specific if both parties want that to happen. I do not generally log conversations for later (editted?) release as part of a propaganda effort. I consider that rather rude actually.

 

 

 

2) http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?/topic/126765-latest-war-war-chart-and-propaganda-and-such-thread/?p=3393652

 

First I heard of permawar from anyone involved here, aside from Lady Dakota. Guessing you have been spending a bit too much time with her for your own good.

 

That said, it seemed like a logical conclusion from earlier actions taken and words said that this was your real goal from the moment MInc got involved. 

 

 

 

3) Yes, exactly!

 

Stats do not lie *if you understand the context.*

 

I know it's frustrating for you when you guys work so hard to finally nose ahead of CA for a few days in terms of damage dealt and I turn around and talk about how bad you are at war, but think about the context here. CA has been at war since May 26th, you guys only got us after TSO and III% softened us up. My nation hadnt been out of anarchy yet when you dogpiled it. You've had so many advantages you have failed to get any traction at all out of. And the trend on that damage chart has passed it's worst point for us, it's headed right back up again.

 

1) Yeah, I don't know how IRC works. Server, client -- that's Xanth stuff. I use Mibbit, and once I registered it everything gets logged.  I'm not generally a log dumper either, but when someone accuses me of "peeing on their face" when I didn't...  well, I'll send you the log in a PM and you can point it out to me.  It might be a screenshot, since Mibbit is a fee client and sometimes my logs don't separate by line -- it just looks like a giant paragraph. If my old eyes don't like it, yours won't either.

 

2)  Come on, Sigrun -- even you don't believe this.  My text is clearly referencing the quoted text, which talks about MInc nations leaving in droves.  My point was that Meth may declare an eternal war, but getting MInc to buy in was obviously a challenge.

 

 

The *implication* he was trying to drop was that someone on our side had threatened it - but again to the best of my knowledge that implication was entirely false. Nor is it even credible, frankly. 

 

In that light my conclusion was entirely logical.

 

No, that was not my implication -- it was your inference. And given the context, which you handily chose to ignore, not logical at all.  Meth said "SRA will never know peace".  I don't need an inference for that -- the words mean what they mean.  I do concede that he dropped that stance a few posts later, IIRC.

 

3) Sigrun -- when I posted those stats, I gave them ZERO context.  They are just numbers, which are enjoyable to see.  RI5 is apparently not tracking our war, so I threw them up (as did you) without comment just as a general informational post, as well as to refute Meth's claim that he was "outdamaging us".  You actually liked it the first time I posted them -- nothing more or less nefarious in my second post. Apply whatever context you like -- the numbers are simply raw data.

 

The context I would apply is that our damage against MInc will go down, as they are mostly turtling, and that limits damage.  

 

Damage against CA is largely meaningless, as you will simply buy back after the war, as I have oft stated.  I would opine that the top of your damage curve was likely actually early on, when your large nations were fully nuked. Now you can buy two a day, and you need them to be successful vs. SDI every time to make them count.  The more you launch, the greater statistical likelihood you will land one (I forget the actual odds vs. SDI -- 60% or something?).

 

Meth is the only nation of any substance in LN, and he is at the point where he is only doing damage against non-wondered nations to pad LN's stats (and that damage is easily repaired, tbh).  

 

The real damage, as I pointed out, was the reduction of MInc in both NS terms and loss of nations.

Edited July 7, 2015 by Walshington

[Margrave]

I'm really curious what audience Sigrun thinks she's playing to.

[Walshington]

I'm really curious what audience Sigrun thinks she's playing to.

 

At this point, there can only be four people still reading this LOL

 

Also, Sigrun:  "Peed on Your Face" logs sent.  Smells like rosewater to me, but just highlight the pee if you can find some.

[Sigrun Vapneir]

 

1) Yeah, I don't know how IRC works. Server, client -- that's Xanth stuff. I use Mibbit, and once I registered it everything gets logged.  I'm not generally a log dumper either, but when someone accuses me of "peeing on their face" when I didn't...  well, I'll send you the log in a PM and you can point it out to me.  It might be a screenshot, since Mibbit is a fee client and sometimes my logs don't separate by line -- it just looks like a giant paragraph. If my old eyes don't like it, yours won't either.

 

And we are all just supposed to believe that your log is unedited? 

 

Don't give me that technical incompetence crap, if you can post here you can fake a log. And if you need help people with experience are close by.

 

 

2)  Come on, Sigrun -- even you don't believe this.  My text is clearly referencing the quoted text, which talks about MInc nations leaving in droves.  My point was that Meth may declare an eternal war, but getting MInc to buy in was obviously a challenge.

 

 

No, that was not my implication -- it was you inference. And given the context, not logical at all.  Meth said "SRA will never know peace".  I don't need an inference for that -- the words mean what they mean.  I do concede that he dropped that stance a few posts later, IIRC.

 

Of course I believe this. Your post was classic propaganda - inserting into the conversation, with no evidence, the assertion that we had threatened eternal war and now our nations were running from the consequences. In fact we had done nothing of the sort - but by inserting such implications and seeing them through to the state of 'common knowledge' is exactly how propaganda wars are done. I may not be very good at them but I have been the target of them before so I am not quite a complete babe in the woods here.

 

IIRC Methrage said something along the lines of  'with your current attitude SRA will never know peace while you lead them' - which in context is clearly not a *threat* of eternal war but rather an attempt to deter attack by expressing his willingness to resist 'as long as it takes.' And I dont think he 'dropped that stance' so much as clarified that distinction.

 

I've made similar statements. I hate propaganda wars, it's my instinct to speak straight. If you want eternal war you got it. That does not mean I am declaring it. Justified as it is starting to feel.

 

3) Sigrun -- when I posted those stats, I gave them ZERO context.  They are just numbers, which are enjoyable to see.  RI5 is apparently not tracking our war, so I threw them up (as did you) without comment just as a general informational post, as well as to refute Meth's claim that he was "outdamaging us".  You actually liked it the first time I posted them -- nothing more or less nefarious in my second post. Apply whatever context you like -- the numbers are simply raw data.

 

At least I complimented and defended you the first time. I was hoping we could have a nice clean war with a nice clean separation between worlds and no rancor in the other one. My hopes were dashed rather brutally.

 

The context you are leaving out is that you picked the moment to cut them off and publish them. Whether you chose that moment carefully or blundered into it, it was a good one for your case. It's hard not to reach the conclusion you probably picked it consciously. Which I would not even blame you for, in isolation.

 

Damage against CA is largely meaningless, as you will simply buy back after the war, as I have oft stated.

 

Wrong on that as so much else. Seriously, you say the dumbest things sometimes... a lot of the time.

 

 

Meth is the only nation of any substance in LN, and he is at the point where he is only doing damage against non-wondered nations to pad LN's stats (and that damage is easily repaired, tbh).  

 

The real damage, as I pointed out, was the reduction of MInc in both NS terms and loss of nations.

 

Meth is only doing damage to your chaff in order to shame your stronger nations into taking his defensive slots.

 

He's no noob to this scenario and he is doing exactly what he is supposed to do. The moment he stepped out of peace mode he was inviting you to hit him with the best 3 nations you can come up with, and about 5 minute later he went from inviting to taunting. You got one counter in, a bit later than ideal but sure it's not a big deal.

 

I guarantee you your big counter is going to get eaten alive. Meth and I have played this game with better opponents before. > :)

 

What will do you? Send another to back him up, and risk the embarrassment when he trashes both of them and starts asking for more?

 

Or leave your loyal subject out to dry, ignoring his screams while my brothers crows pick his bones clean?

 

But I forget, I am talking to the man who claims that there are no strategy or tactics here, it's all predetermined. :facepalm:

 

As to your last line - Minc may be on a diet but their spirit is strong.

 

Also watch what you wish for. I do not believe you have the ability to exterminate them, but I guarantee if  you surprise me on that score you will truly regret it.

 

 

I'm really curious what audience Sigrun thinks she's playing to.

 

One of these days you'll figure out - I don't play.

Edited July 7, 2015 by Sigrun Vapneir

[maxnmike]

 

And we are all just supposed to believe that your log is unedited? 

 

Don't give me that technical incompetence crap, if you can post here you can fake a log. And if you need help people with experience are close by.

 

 

If you are so concerned about the logs being altered, use your own logs or have one or more impartial parties included in the conversations and have them log the conversations to verify whether they have been altered or not. But you won't do that as it doesn't fit your agenda.

[Sigrun Vapneir]

 

 

If you are so concerned about the logs being altered, use your own logs or have one or more impartial parties included in the conversations and have them log the conversations to verify whether they have been altered or not. But you won't do that as it doesn't fit your agenda.

 

You're right, it doesnt fit my agenda, it hasnt since 2007 and it's not likely to.

 

Call me crazy but I believe diplomacy works most smoothly when the diplomats can speak freely without worrying about out of context quotes being attributed to them later.

[Walshington]

 

And we are all just supposed to believe that your log is unedited? 

 

Don't give me that technical incompetence crap, if you can post here you can fake a log. And if you need help people with experience are close by.

 

Er.... yes?   Does it read like you remember it?  Are there words that strike you as unreal?  Is there a font change?  Is there time missing?

It seems pretty convenient for you to be able to dismiss all the links and posts I've made as fake, without ever stepping up and providing evidence that they are.  Can you post a single faked item I've posted?  EVER?

 

 

 

 

Of course I believe this. Your post was classic propaganda - inserting into the conversation, with no evidence, the assertion that we had threatened eternal war and now our nations were running from the consequences. In fact we had done nothing of the sort - but by inserting such implications and seeing them through to the state of 'common knowledge' is exactly how propaganda wars are done. I may not be very good at them but I have been the target of them before so I am not quite a complete babe in the woods here.

 

IIRC Methrage said something along the lines of  'with your current attitude SRA will never know peace while you lead them' - which in context is clearly not a *threat* of eternal war but rather an attempt to deter attack by expressing his willingness to resist 'as long as it takes.' And I dont think he 'dropped that stance' so much as clarified that distinction.

 

I've made similar statements. I hate propaganda wars, it's my instinct to speak straight. If you want eternal war you got it. That does not mean I am declaring it. Justified as it is starting to feel.

 

 

I've done NOTHING but speak straight.  The beauty of the OWF, Sigrun, is that we don't have to sit here and rely on recollections of what was said.  We have a quote button, for Chrissake. Methrage did NOT say  'with your current attitude SRA will never know peace while you lead them'. What Methrage EXACTLY said was:

 

Your choice if you want to test it, but regardless of how many allies will help; SRA will never know peace. 

 

 

That is the entirety of his post.  Check here if you must. There is nothing suggesting that it is incumbent upon my leadership, or anything else.  It says however many allies I call, I will never know peace.  It is unequivocally a threat of eternal war.  Those words have NO other meaning without doing gymnastics with semantics. I'm not, unlike you, changing context or putting words in his mouth.  He said what he said, those words mean what they mean.  His alliance members nation bios say similar.

 

This is in no way the definition of "classic propaganda". Pretty sure if I queried King Neptune over his peace proposal and said "Monsters, Inc. will never know peace", he'd assume we were at eternal war.  Because there is literally no other way to take it.

 

Yet still, you try to put those words on ME:  If you want eternal war you got it.

 

And you have yet to provide a single link, screenshot or PM where I said it.  I can't prove a negative -- only you can prove I said it, and you have yet too.

 

 

 

 

At least I complimented and defended you the first time. I was hoping we could have a nice clean war with a nice clean separation between worlds and no rancor in the other one. My hopes were dashed rather brutally.

 

The context you are leaving out is that you picked the moment to cut them off and publish them. Whether you chose that moment carefully or blundered into it, it was a good one for your case. It's hard not to reach the conclusion you probably picked it consciously. Which I would not even blame you for, in isolation.

 

 

The stats are made when I have time.  They are done manually, and are a pain in the ass.  Feel free to post your own when you feel like it.  The moment was picked (July 4 in the late morning) because that is when I had time.  If RI5 was available -- and I asked, believe me -- I wouldn't do them at all.  They were mostly so close as to be even.  Wow, I really called my shot there!

 

 

 

 

Wrong on that as so much else. Seriously, you say the dumbest things sometimes... a lot of the time.

 

 

Nah -- 15 billion bucks is 15 billion bucks, although your tech will take a while.  LN is all lol-tier, easily replaced.  MInc will suffer.  

 

 

 

Meth is only doing damage to your chaff in order to shame your stronger nations into taking his defensive slots.

 

He's no noob to this scenario and he is doing exactly what he is supposed to do. The moment he stepped out of peace mode he was inviting you to hit him with the best 3 nations you can come up with, and about 5 minute later he went from inviting to taunting. You got one counter in, a bit later than ideal but sure it's not a big deal.

 

I guarantee you your big counter is going to get eaten alive. Meth and I have played this game with better opponents before. >  :)

 

What will do you? Send another to back him up, and risk the embarrassment when he trashes both of them and starts asking for more?

 

Or leave your loyal subject out to dry, ignoring his screams while my brothers crows pick his bones clean?

 

But I forget, I am talking to the man who claims that there are no strategy or tactics here, it's all predetermined.  :facepalm:

 

 

 

Hang on -- you can't have it both ways.  In another thread I complimented Meth on avoiding Smurth who was selling down to hit him.  Now you're saying he wants Smurth?  Good -- all he needs to do is buy back a little.  What I won't buy is that Smurth WANTS to get hit by someone worthy, yet is trying to avoid someone worthy.  That is a logical fallacy.

 

Which is it, so I know whether to continue complimenting him, or deride him?

 

 

 

 

But I forget, I am talking to the man who claims that there are no strategy or tactics here, it's all predetermined.  :facepalm:

 

 

 

Again with the putting words in mouths that were never said.  What I said was, IN-GAME there is very little strategy and tactic involved.  Outside that, there is.  You can verify this yourself by reading our PM string.  It's right there in Black and White.  

 

 

 

 

 

As to your last line - Minc may be on a diet but their spirit is strong.

 

Also watch what you wish for. I do not believe you have the ability to exterminate them, but I guarantee if  you surprise me on that score you will truly regret it.

 

 

 

MInc is on a starvation diet.  Not sure what this extermination you bring up is -- putting words in my mouth again?  MInc can end this at ANY time. Not sure how many more times I can say that.

Of course you cannot point to where I said I wish for there extermination, but that won't stop you from implying I did.  When it comes time to put up or shut up, you always seem to shut up or change the subject.

I haven't avoided my own words yet -- don't need to.  They do not vex me as your do you.

 

 

Edited July 7, 2015 by Walshington

[Walshington]

 

You're right, it doesnt fit my agenda, it hasnt since 2007 and it's not likely to.

 

Call me crazy but I believe diplomacy works most smoothly when the diplomats can speak freely without worrying about out of context quotes being attributed to them later.

 

And yet I provided it to you in its entirety, and in private, so you needen't "worry about out of context quotes being attributed to them later."

 

How does it look to you? Find the pee yet?

Edited July 7, 2015 by Walshington

[Caustic]

How is this still a thing?

[Walshington]

Because some people do not value facts, neutral data, and the meanings of their own words.  

 

Dead people everywhere, I tell you.

 

[murtibing]

So the preconditions for the peace talks are civilty and honesty? But what if they are mutually exclusive?

Edited July 7, 2015 by murtibing

[Walshington]

Hey Sigrun -- here's what you said I did:

 

 

You wound up walking away and saying you couldnt talk to me because I wouldnt agree with you that a few relatively insignificant details that were in your favor magically converted your aggression into defense. 

 

 

 

Here's what I actually said:

 

 

A little bit different, eh?  And by a little bit, I mean a whole lot.  Your coalition should stop paraphrasing.  You're awful at it.  On both sides.

 

This should be available in your inbox for verification.

Edited July 30, 2017 by Walshington

[Sabcat]

I find you, your post and you avatar offensive. But not your entire alliance. So why lump every single member of Minc under the same heading? Bit narrow minded IMHO. BTW my fighting isn't so bad either. Go count how many wars I've lost stats wise. (walsh will love the stats)

 

I'm a believer in collective responsibility. The leaders of an alliance can only be asshats if they're enabled by the people who follow them. I see you've followed your leaders into a wonderful place.

[Sabcat]

How is this still a thing?

Not just a thing, the only thing right now.

[kingzog]

Hey Sigrun -- here's what you said I did:

 

<snip>

 

Here's what I actually said:

 

<snip>

 

A little bit different, eh?  And by a little bit, I mean a whole lot.  Your coalition should stop paraphrasing.  You're awful at it.  On both sides.

 

This should be available in your inbox for verification.

 

All I see is more evidence that you are a monster.

 

Shame on you; you and your common sense and reasoning.

Edited July 7, 2015 by kingzog