QUOTE(Revan @ Jul 31 2008, 11:03 AM) 539102
I was looking at intriguing posts made by Daganev. In the remainder of this post, I plan to summarize the contents of them in an effort to look at our situation realistically and from a viewpoint that takes in the whole picture. It is requisite, even in this summary sketch, to go back a few years to see how today, we might have let Daganev conspire with evil. Tomorrow, we won't. Instead, we will reinforce what is best in people.
Of course, I'm generalizing a little here. But that's only because of all of Daganev's exaggerations and incorrect comparisons, one in particular stands out: "I have problems trusting people ." His statement speak volumes. And for those mealymouthed carpetbaggers who want to hide behind the argument that Daganev's disciples are not villainous madmen but rather lewd, obtrusive slimeballs, my question is simply this: What's the difference? Even if Daganev's facts were reliable, they were gathered selectively and then manipulated towards favored conclusions.
You may be shocked to hear this, but the pen is a powerful tool. Why don't we use that tool to spread the word about Daganev's dim-witted tractates to our friends, our neighbors, our relatives, our co-workers -- even to strangers? I don't have a high opinion of imperious rabble-rousers. I'll probably devote a separate post to that topic alone, but for now, I'll simply summarize by stating that I wouldn't want to toy with our opinions. I would, on the other hand, love to navigate a safe path between the Scylla of Daganev's dour arguments and the Charybdis of masochism. But, hey, I'm already doing that with this post. I see how important Daganev's unrestrained sentiments are to his grunts and I laugh. I laugh because if you look back over some of my older posts, you'll see that I predicted that he would deprive individuals of the right to exemplify the principles of honor, duty, loyalty, and courage. And, as I predicted, he did. But you know, that was not a difficult prediction to make. Anyone who has bothered to learn even a little about Daganev could have made the same prediction. I hope I haven't bored you by writing an entire post about Daganev. Still, this post was the best way to explain to you that the ripples of reaction to Daganev's politics have spread, giving rise to universal calls to bring fresh gameplay and even-handed tolerance to the present controversy.
Of course, I'm generalizing a little here. But that's only because of all of Daganev's exaggerations and incorrect comparisons, one in particular stands out: "I have problems trusting people ." His statement speak volumes. And for those mealymouthed carpetbaggers who want to hide behind the argument that Daganev's disciples are not villainous madmen but rather lewd, obtrusive slimeballs, my question is simply this: What's the difference? Even if Daganev's facts were reliable, they were gathered selectively and then manipulated towards favored conclusions.
You may be shocked to hear this, but the pen is a powerful tool. Why don't we use that tool to spread the word about Daganev's dim-witted tractates to our friends, our neighbors, our relatives, our co-workers -- even to strangers? I don't have a high opinion of imperious rabble-rousers. I'll probably devote a separate post to that topic alone, but for now, I'll simply summarize by stating that I wouldn't want to toy with our opinions. I would, on the other hand, love to navigate a safe path between the Scylla of Daganev's dour arguments and the Charybdis of masochism. But, hey, I'm already doing that with this post. I see how important Daganev's unrestrained sentiments are to his grunts and I laugh. I laugh because if you look back over some of my older posts, you'll see that I predicted that he would deprive individuals of the right to exemplify the principles of honor, duty, loyalty, and courage. And, as I predicted, he did. But you know, that was not a difficult prediction to make. Anyone who has bothered to learn even a little about Daganev could have made the same prediction. I hope I haven't bored you by writing an entire post about Daganev. Still, this post was the best way to explain to you that the ripples of reaction to Daganev's politics have spread, giving rise to universal calls to bring fresh gameplay and even-handed tolerance to the present controversy.
QUOTE(Revan @ Jul 31 2008, 11:14 AM) 539107
No no, you misunderstand. The argument is legitimate whether or not it was auto-generated.
QUOTE(Revan @ Aug 1 2008, 02:55 PM) 539559
........
........
.....................
.....
..
..............................
.
.
.........
WHY ARE YOU ALL ROLECLAIMING ON DAY ONE!? WHAT THE BLOODY... IJHASIHFUIHWOFHOWRUHOURWGH!!!!!
Never have I seen such a huge blob of FAIL! I can't BELIEVE you people listened to Daganev's idea to MASS ROLECLAIM ON DAY ONE! Holy
you guys are naive
........
.....................
.....
..
..............................
.
.
.........
WHY ARE YOU ALL ROLECLAIMING ON DAY ONE!? WHAT THE BLOODY... IJHASIHFUIHWOFHOWRUHOURWGH!!!!!
Never have I seen such a huge blob of FAIL! I can't BELIEVE you people listened to Daganev's idea to MASS ROLECLAIM ON DAY ONE! Holy
you guys are naiveQUOTE(Revan @ Aug 1 2008, 03:19 PM) 539577
I'm not being emotional. I'm just wondering why you guys are being so naive.
I think you're being emotional. At the very least, illogical and spiteful.
QUOTE(shadow @ Aug 2 2008, 08:25 AM) 539581
Err. you're having Daganev voting for Bael -and- Shamarah. What now?
I have no idea what you are talking about.
QUOTE(rika @ Aug 1 2008, 10:27 PM) 539582
I have no idea what you are talking about.
You just broke your own rules with that edit! Definitely scummy. Vote: Rika.
Vote: requiem dot exe for starting a ridiculous, pointless, and entirely stupid bandwagon of nameclaiming. What the are you thinking.
are you thinking.