Aren't you just talking about yourself, here? Everyone else is saying there are shades of grey, that while Wyrd is in some ways different to Taint, it is not wholly distinct. You are saying there is taint, and there is not taint.


Which I love to see, because it really shows they're following the 'Nothing matters but Glomdoring' motto, and spreading the rot and ruin of the Glomdoring like in the histories.

Regardless, that's Glomdoring's choice. It's not something to be ashamed of if some of us interpret our teachings with a little more conviction.

Edit: And yes, I know that's unfair on the majority of Glomdoring characters, who are really starting to make the place a haven for great RP. I just wanted to point out the flaws in Daganev's intimations with the same level of ego.

Stop being so infantile, take your head out of your behind and argue with logic for once you silly prat.

You're saying Wyrd is not Taint since mechanics say so, but in the past mechanics said that Glomdoring was Tainted yet, surprise surprise, you argued it was not, against what the mechanics plainly said.

So it makes more sense to argue that Blue=Green than to argue that Cerulean!=Blue?

Hey no personal attacks, bad quidgyboo, bad!

(and yes the smilie is totally unrelated but I wanted to use it)

Where is the logic in that? You're just picking a completely unrelated analogy that suits what you want to show.

Doesn't it make sense because its like Yellow=Gold rather than arguing Dark grey!=Black?

Only game mechanics I have been talking about are quests, I don't which forum your reading.

Sorry for taking Narsrim's anology, I'll come up with my own next time.

The only thing I have said is to read the events posts... Stop putting words in my mouth.

To argue that X != X (X being Taint) makes less sense to me than to argue that X = Y (Y being Wyrd).

But that's not my point. Why should you be able to argue against mechanics in one instance and then tell us off for doing the same later on?



I consider Daganev asking me what I'm smoking to be a personal attack and I'm quite fond of stooping to people's level to show them the stupidity they express.

You mean other than where you went all upper case and 'rar rar it's not my opinion it's game mechanics' when you were replying to us saying that Wyrd = Taint, right?

The whole thrust of your argument has been that Seren should realize Wyrd is not Taint. In any way. Black or white.

Then you say you're disappointed that players can't see the subtleties, and only view things in black and white.

Ok, lets make this clear once again...

Glomdoring arguing that it was not tained was an issue of Semantics. Like calling the group "pro-life" or "anti-abortion". Its an argument about self identification, nothing more nothing less.

an argument that says Wyrd is Taint, is an argument about weather Wyrd is a cleansing of the touch of Kethuru, or an impowerment of the touch of Kethuru.

The second argument has an answer, the first argument does not.


And asking what your smoking is not a personal attack.. its question about how you are comming to the conclusions that you are comming to, as any mention of Game mechanics was in refrence to quests and the old reasoning of why people said its ok for serenwilde to attack glomdoring, even when many of those game mechanics were not infact, game mechanics.

No it wasnt', that was Anisu's argument, and I asked him what that had to do with anything.

What the hell? This is your character's opinion. Whether the first argument is right, or the second, is not something the mechanics tells us. At all.

Sorry Daganev, your character can choose an answer that he likes, but that doesn't invalidate every other interpretation just because you say so.

And who is to say that saying Wyrd is Taint is not also an issue of identification? I know Elryn views Wyrd as something different to Kethuru's raw touch, but a Tainting of the natural world nonetheless.

Edit: And no, it wasn't related to what Anisu said in any shape or form. You argued Wyrd should not be viewed as Taint, it wasn't like a spoilt milk example. You then said players viewed everything in yes or no terms, which is EXACTLY THE ARGUMENT YOU WERE MAKING.

Considering I argued Serenwilde has every right to keep viewing Glomdoring as tainted, and it's accually up to Glomdoring to make Serenwilde change their mind Icly rather then talking about event posts on a forum. I highly doubt I claimed Seren should realise Glom isn't taint.

Semantics is an argument of meaning so I don't see how an argument about Glomdoring being Tainted or not fits in there, but it does not really matter.



If you want to ask how I am coming to my conclusions, you ask just that. I could say "you are a idiot" or I could say "I don't agree, your arguments don't make sense" and I would still be expressing the same thing in a different way. How you express yourself does, however, carry with it sentiments and tones.

Anyway, you've managed to remind me how much I can't stand to talk to you. You don't argue in any sort of logical manner in my opinion and your arguments are usually circular, strawmen or just nonsensical. I'll return to putting you on my ignore list.

This has kind of deviated from the main point.

But yea of course seren has reasons to attack glomdoring, serens also have reasons to attack celest.

No one can really argue that one organisation dosnt have a reason to want to kill any other in the game.

But seriously everyone go have a cup of tea and calm down before they post again its turning into petty bickering from almost everyone.

But to clarify one point , I said the serens kill angels under information from amaru so sorry if I was mistaken, it isnt true that serens have called angels an abomination due to the cherubs and I had also heard that they are ment to/allowed to kill celestians angels if they come into the seren? I just want to clarify this point because as I said I dont know if its completly true or not?

Anyway back on topic, cant we all just get along hehe.

Thats what I said to Anisu...

Go read page 11 again...

Serens can kill angels, and their 'master' because you see it's against their laws to bring cosmic creatures within their territory (although they don't seem to mind me taking my angel into faethorn even if the leaves say the same laws as Serenwilde go there). They do consider Cherubs abominations, but there is accually a difference between a Cherub and an archangel. (my character believes Archangels have always existed, something that got strenghtened by Lacostian calling them the caretakers)

We just thought you meaned killing the angels/cherubs on Celestia.

Aiakon, you bore me. I yawn.

No wait, I should clarify. 1. You take yourself too seriously. 2. You are living in la la land. 3. Don't speak to me as if I'm some ignorant child. If you need to tell others that Lusternia is not a life substitute, you might want to take a look inside and determine if that's the approach you take towards Lusternia. 4. Lusternia is great. I'm a dedicated player. I enjoy pvp. I should not have to coddle other players in game. So long as I follow divine rules, I'm good. 5. Go and be annoyingly condescending to someone else. I'm not impressed by your attempt at wit.

Cwin, I agree with you. Your entire post.


Daganev, argh.