From: stevegx@aol.com (SteveG X)
Date: 19 Apr 1998 12:14:45 EDT
::applauds as he reads Brian's post::
Well said, Brian. What you have said is what I have been trying to get out on paper for the last few days, and it seems as though you have done it much better. Thank you.
-Steve
A Renegade's Challenge to the 7th
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: kalamere@aol.com (Kalamere)
Date: 23 Apr 1998 12:09:00 EDT
Sid Writes:
> Never, EVER, in this debate have I told you or Kal
> or ANYONE, that they were being insulting. I never
> said they weren't, either, but that makes no difference.
One problem you have here Sid is that when you lift a torch and do not pick a target, you end up igniting everything around you, whether that was your desire or not.
It would seem that you must to be directing you commentary at *someone* who has placed an entry upon this board, else you'd have no reason for writing it in the first place. Does this term "blind loyalty" upsets you so that you fail to notice the author of those words and set out in a blind rage to tackle not only the person who wrote it but also anyone who was thinking about writing it or even simply agreed with it?
Why leave out the identity of the person your gripe is actually with? Don't you see here that without that identity known, everyone that could qualify under what you have said takes offense? Spare yourself the anguish of it all and simply address your commentary to the person who has offended you.
An anology, somewhat offbase, but that might help you understand my point, is this: There was a lord in the land I come from who had many servants. He felt it unkind to single any of them out when there was a wrong committed and so, instead, he would punish all of his servants when one of them stepped out of line. I'm afraid he is no longer with us these days. One day the servants revolted, striking back and killing this lord. The story is a
tragedy however, for it was but one servant who caused all the problems, and the other servants didn't even like him. Had the lord taken the time to deal with him instead of the entire body of servants, he might still be residing in the manor.
Another way of looking at it is: Don't use a cannon when all the job requires is a dart.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now.. all that said, since I *am* the one that used the term "blind faith", and to my recollection, I believe I am the only one who used that term, I feel more than justified in addressing this response to you.
Recall that "blind faith" is the only "insult" you have taken specific offense to. Whether you have taken offense to Adonai's characterization of my ideals as shallow or any of the multitude of other "insults" in this debate has been unaddressed. Considering this, you might see why those in opposition to the Overlord have felt your challenge being aimed at them, rather that at the discussion as a whole.
But I digress. Coming back to the phrase "blind faith," Brian has been kind enough to lend me his dictionary so that I might better explain the term to you. In context, the diffintion of "blind" reads as:
blind [1] (adjective)
2 a : unable or unwilling to discern or judge <~ to a lover's faults>
b : UNQUESTIONING <~ loyalty> <~ faith>
Now, when one says that the Overlord may do a thing simply because it is written within the rules and that none should make comment on it, said statement most assuredly falls into the clause of "unquestioning". Hence, the phrase "blind loyalty," while considered an insult by you, was quite fitting to what I had to say at the time. If you will re-read the section where this statement was made, you'll see that this is the context in which I used the
term.
Of note here, Adonai has further contradicted that statement by saying he indeed did question the Overlord on issues involved in the rules. Hence, he removed from himself the characterization of "blind loyalty," after which I disgarded the term as no longer fitting.
I remain,
~Kalamere Ar'Din...
Date: 23 Apr 1998 12:09:00 EDT
Sid Writes:
> Never, EVER, in this debate have I told you or Kal
> or ANYONE, that they were being insulting. I never
> said they weren't, either, but that makes no difference.
One problem you have here Sid is that when you lift a torch and do not pick a target, you end up igniting everything around you, whether that was your desire or not.
It would seem that you must to be directing you commentary at *someone* who has placed an entry upon this board, else you'd have no reason for writing it in the first place. Does this term "blind loyalty" upsets you so that you fail to notice the author of those words and set out in a blind rage to tackle not only the person who wrote it but also anyone who was thinking about writing it or even simply agreed with it?
Why leave out the identity of the person your gripe is actually with? Don't you see here that without that identity known, everyone that could qualify under what you have said takes offense? Spare yourself the anguish of it all and simply address your commentary to the person who has offended you.
An anology, somewhat offbase, but that might help you understand my point, is this: There was a lord in the land I come from who had many servants. He felt it unkind to single any of them out when there was a wrong committed and so, instead, he would punish all of his servants when one of them stepped out of line. I'm afraid he is no longer with us these days. One day the servants revolted, striking back and killing this lord. The story is a
tragedy however, for it was but one servant who caused all the problems, and the other servants didn't even like him. Had the lord taken the time to deal with him instead of the entire body of servants, he might still be residing in the manor.
Another way of looking at it is: Don't use a cannon when all the job requires is a dart.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now.. all that said, since I *am* the one that used the term "blind faith", and to my recollection, I believe I am the only one who used that term, I feel more than justified in addressing this response to you.
Recall that "blind faith" is the only "insult" you have taken specific offense to. Whether you have taken offense to Adonai's characterization of my ideals as shallow or any of the multitude of other "insults" in this debate has been unaddressed. Considering this, you might see why those in opposition to the Overlord have felt your challenge being aimed at them, rather that at the discussion as a whole.
But I digress. Coming back to the phrase "blind faith," Brian has been kind enough to lend me his dictionary so that I might better explain the term to you. In context, the diffintion of "blind" reads as:
blind [1] (adjective)
2 a : unable or unwilling to discern or judge <~ to a lover's faults>
b : UNQUESTIONING <~ loyalty> <~ faith>
Now, when one says that the Overlord may do a thing simply because it is written within the rules and that none should make comment on it, said statement most assuredly falls into the clause of "unquestioning". Hence, the phrase "blind loyalty," while considered an insult by you, was quite fitting to what I had to say at the time. If you will re-read the section where this statement was made, you'll see that this is the context in which I used the
term.
Of note here, Adonai has further contradicted that statement by saying he indeed did question the Overlord on issues involved in the rules. Hence, he removed from himself the characterization of "blind loyalty," after which I disgarded the term as no longer fitting.
I remain,
~Kalamere Ar'Din...
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: sidarthae@aol.com (Sidartha E)
Date: 23 Apr 1998 14:41:00 EDT
One problem you have here Sid is that when you lift a torch and do not pick a target, you end up igniting everything around you, whether that was your desire or not.<<
Unfortunately, but true aparantly. Perhaps also people could wait and think things through before being automatically insulted? Just a thought.
Why leave out the identity of the person your gripe is actually with? Don't you see here that without that identity known, everyone that could qualify under what you have said takes offense? Spare yourself the anguish of it all and simply address your commentary to the person who has offended you.<<
The problem with this though, is that there was a reason why I didn't name names. Because I had the gripe with the action, not the person. I know now that the written word is inadequate to fully address the situation in it's proper light, so I feel that explaining it anymore is just going to make it worse.
As to the comments about the "blind loyalty", perhaps I shouldn't have even used it as an example. I also used the term "coward" as an example. And that's all they were...examples. It was my intention to attack the insults as a whole, but somewhere along the line, it got misinterpreted, and I take much of the blame on that for not making myself perfectly clear.
~Sidartha Elgarette~
Mistress@Arms
Journeywoman, TDL
Dracoern Highlands
Date: 23 Apr 1998 14:41:00 EDT
One problem you have here Sid is that when you lift a torch and do not pick a target, you end up igniting everything around you, whether that was your desire or not.<<
Unfortunately, but true aparantly. Perhaps also people could wait and think things through before being automatically insulted? Just a thought.
Why leave out the identity of the person your gripe is actually with? Don't you see here that without that identity known, everyone that could qualify under what you have said takes offense? Spare yourself the anguish of it all and simply address your commentary to the person who has offended you.<<
The problem with this though, is that there was a reason why I didn't name names. Because I had the gripe with the action, not the person. I know now that the written word is inadequate to fully address the situation in it's proper light, so I feel that explaining it anymore is just going to make it worse.
As to the comments about the "blind loyalty", perhaps I shouldn't have even used it as an example. I also used the term "coward" as an example. And that's all they were...examples. It was my intention to attack the insults as a whole, but somewhere along the line, it got misinterpreted, and I take much of the blame on that for not making myself perfectly clear.
~Sidartha Elgarette~
Mistress@Arms
Journeywoman, TDL
Dracoern Highlands
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: daemon102@aol.com (Daemon102)
Date: 23 Apr 1998 16:08:06 EDT
::Finally feeling the need to say something::
Sid~
"It was my intention to attack the insults as a whole, but somewhere along the line, it got misinterpreted, and I take much of the blame on that for not making myself perfectly clear."
I know too of your problems with the written word. By the way your previous posts were written, the tone of those posts cause this statement to translate directly to:
"It was my intention to insult the insults as a whole"
I most likely am wrong for that is the problem with reading and not speaking where there is a miss clarification in reading one must write instead of stop and question what was just said. In doing so most often one digresses causeing the others to question what was said and pen their own missives. ::knows many are saying 'huh?' right now as that was his intention::
I have said before and repeat it now for public knowledge:
ALL generalizations are FALSE
I emplore all parties involed to end the public discussion on this topic and to place your enegries and knowledge of the sport into a more constructive topic, say like Girvin's suggestion. To clarify, by "all parties involved" I mean this. . .This post, regardless of anything else was just what the title implies "A Renegade's Challenge to the 7th" The challenge was retracted by Kal due to the O'lord
intercession. ((See post bearing the same title))
Daemon Satyriasis {S d102
Dueler of Swords {S devilman
Red Dragon Innkeeper {S rdi_dae
F.E.S.o.R.
[X]
::the albino walks off wondering how many people will see the truth behind the Irony of his statement on generalizations::
Date: 23 Apr 1998 16:08:06 EDT
::Finally feeling the need to say something::
Sid~
"It was my intention to attack the insults as a whole, but somewhere along the line, it got misinterpreted, and I take much of the blame on that for not making myself perfectly clear."
I know too of your problems with the written word. By the way your previous posts were written, the tone of those posts cause this statement to translate directly to:
"It was my intention to insult the insults as a whole"
I most likely am wrong for that is the problem with reading and not speaking where there is a miss clarification in reading one must write instead of stop and question what was just said. In doing so most often one digresses causeing the others to question what was said and pen their own missives. ::knows many are saying 'huh?' right now as that was his intention::
I have said before and repeat it now for public knowledge:
ALL generalizations are FALSE
I emplore all parties involed to end the public discussion on this topic and to place your enegries and knowledge of the sport into a more constructive topic, say like Girvin's suggestion. To clarify, by "all parties involved" I mean this. . .This post, regardless of anything else was just what the title implies "A Renegade's Challenge to the 7th" The challenge was retracted by Kal due to the O'lord
intercession. ((See post bearing the same title))
Daemon Satyriasis {S d102
Dueler of Swords {S devilman
Red Dragon Innkeeper {S rdi_dae
F.E.S.o.R.
[X]
::the albino walks off wondering how many people will see the truth behind the Irony of his statement on generalizations::