After being hit by such a statement, I say Exarius had all the right to call him a hypocrite. But the point is not the insult, the point is that Exarius is not someone who is pushed out of community, he chose that life becuse he enjoys it. Sylphas is throwing his preffered way of life in the dirt, giving him a reason to defend himself.

Just like Exarius threw our preferred ways of life in the dirt!

Please cease this negative bickering. Hazar, I think you have embarrassed yourself enough.

Exactly! And if you look back, you will discover that you yourself defended that way of life honourably! *laughs*

Neither of you have done anything wrong, you are now figthing a dead cause since you have defended yourself and everyone else. Just like him. You are even.

I don't see anything hypocritical about Sylphas' statement. I don't see where you're getting that from, sure it wasn't a nice thing to say but it wasn't hypocritical. It would have been hypocritical if Sylphas was a loner and a hermit, which he is not.



Yes but he doesn't need to defend himself -from Sylphas- by inferring that -all of us innocent (well some of us are...) bystanders- aren't part of the "in crowd" in real life because we play this game. Besides, it is Sylphas' opinions that hermits have no place in this organizational conflict-oriented game. Whether you believe that or not is your opinion.

Of course, nobody is perfect, but that is something I will leave for Exarius to comment himself when he returns, no matter how well I know him, we are two completely different persons. And for your last statement, I agree with all my heart, as we all deserve an opinion.

Gods damn. I was just in a bad mood, chill the hell out.

I don't expect him to be, I was just showing how he wrote it and how I interpretted it. Then you showed your interpretation in a rather aggressive manner and I showed how I believed it to be false.

If he wants to clear up what he meant so be it, I would like to see what he was thinking when he wrote it.

EDIT: Actually after I reread my first statement directed at you I realized I was a bit aggressive, I apologize.

oh, indeed. I had alot of pent up frustration to vent out becuse of matter more or less directly concering this. It was a burst of emotions on my part, and of course, I apologise to anyone who might have taken offence. As of our opinions, we shall have to let the readers of this be the judge, hmm?

Edit: (I read your edit and will say apology accepted, as well as I direct an apology of my own towards you)

I'm sorry, too. You kind of exploded while quoting me, so my all-too-male instincts told me 'RIVAL! CONFLICT! FIGHT! WIN!'.

We argued. It was a good exercise in semantics, if nothing else. No hard feelings here, hope you don't have any.

Ciao.

Yep, but I hope Exarius comes and clears this all up. I must admit I get a little pissed when I get stereotyped for whatever reason even if it is accidental.

I must say, this was one of the most beneficial arguments I have heard or participated in for a long time, my best regards to everyone.

So much confusion...
Only Melanchthon seems to have understood.

Edit:
Oh, and Bad Hazar! Attacking Felandi like that
Glad you kissed and made up

Nothing wrong with attacking. Felandi and I now have the kind of understanding that only comes from throwing yourselves whole-heartedly into semantic warfare.

And I do, belatedly, get his point.

*cough* Her *cough*

Edit: Unless you where talking about Exarius point, in that case I concede

Hugs for everyone.

As my housemate says:

"Chill ooouut, Brudda"

He sometimes uses a different word, but let's not start bashing me for offending people with it .

When I said everyone who played Lusternia was not part of the "in" crowd, I most certainly did not mean that as an insult to anyone, or that they were incapable of having social lives.

On Lusternia, I have a very full social life. You just don't see it.

I also contribute quite a lot to Lusternia, even though most of it happens behind the scenes.

Far from calling us all socially inept hermits IRL for likening to my cricumstance here, I'm only saying we're not the prom kings and queens, the head cheerleaders and the movie stars and their entourages. The trendsetters. Because if we were, we wouldn't have time left over for Lusternia.

And despite what anyone's asserted here or elsewhere, Lusternia is not "about" the conflict between organizations. It's an open-ended role-playing game. That means it's about whatever we make it about. We each bring different things to the game, and that's what makes it interesting.

I really don't care if you want to play a zealot. But I do care if you choose to play a zealot and then scream at the hard working admins when it doesn't work out like you hoped.

I really don't care if the part you enjoy about Lusternia is the inter-org conflict. I do care if you tell me I'd better see it the same way as you or get out.

I personally know a social fraternity president and a campus activity board planner who plays Lusternia.

You're making generalizations based on the people you interact with. Incidently it seems your social circle isn't as all encompassing as you make it appear. Anyways... Can you start complaining about how people complain too much about not being able to bash dead babies and not doing other things like not conflicting with each other?

I think it's always safe to stay away from making assumptions about players based on your own circumstances. Players seem to come from all walks of life (although we ARE all geeks, anyone who says otherwise is in serious denial).

You're right, Lusternia isn't about conflict between orgs, but that's one major aspect of it, and I think some of the frustration people are having is that they have come to love that about the game, and they're upset it's (it, as in their opportunities and ways of doing so) being deemphasized and softened.