From: gnrtdrgoon@aol.com (GnrtDrgoon)
Date: 17 Jun 2000 15:20:06 EDT
>If you think someone's words are important enough to post publicly, Drakewyn,
>then post them yourself. Otherwise, there is no point to referring to
>something you are never going to present to prove whatever unclear point you
>are trying to make.
>
>Do cease being a prima donna expecting other people to do your research and
>composition of your argument for you.
This I have to laugh at.
When Drakewyn comes under scrutiny by Morgan and Jona, they all expect her to come up with her defense, to find what Drake supposedly did wrong, and show it for all to see on the boards.
But when Drake calls out Jona to do the same thing, to have Jona post her own words up, to prove herself in the right, now Drake is being told to come out and post Jona's words and do the research.
Sounds rather hipocritical to me.
If Jona wants Drake to constantly go through posts and such to put Drakes own words up, I think it reasonable for Jona to post Jona's own words up.
Or is someone afraid of the truth?
Personally, I know nothing about this situation, and really, I don't care. However, I think it's rediculous to tell one person to research her own words, then when that person says to another to do it, the first person again is told to do her own research.
Personally, part two: I find this to be another situation of "Morgan hates Drake, but likes Jona, so Jona is automatically right and Drake is automatically wrong, no matter what anyone says different."
Now, one of the upcoming posts will undoubtably be about my showing favoritism towards Drake in this argument. But stuff it. I don't care about the argument. Yes, Drake is my best friend, and I will gladly defend her. However, I will never blindly defend anyone, nor have I ever. I'm not defending her now in this argument.
I want Jona to post her own words up for all to see. And Drake shouldn't have to post them. Jona wants Drake to post Drakes words all the time, so Jona should have to do the same thing.
That is my argument. The rest is just stupid.
Again, the deceit of Madame Silvertree finds the light of da
-
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: morganalefay@aol.com (Morgana le Fay)
Date: 17 Jun 2000 16:54:53 EDT
G'nort, you have fallen prey to making an ad hominem attack, meaning, you never touched my argument, instead chose to attack me by focusing on my affiliation, or lack thereof, with Drakewyn.
If you don't want someone to point out your own affiliation toward Drakewyn in order to invalidate your argument (which would be fallacious and shouldn't be done) then don't you start by doing it yourself.
You must accept the argument on its own without a prejudice toward the arguer or the arguer's affiliation. If I were to sell you something and I told you that I was selling it to you at just under the current market value and I provided proof to support me, it would be fallacious for you to accuse me of making an unfair price, because, say, I stood to make a profit. However, you could successfully refute my stance if I were stating a price that was
well above the market value that you were aware of and I refused to provide you with proof of my right to establish that price ("trust me, it's cheap" is not a good support to a claim).
If we strip away the names and personalities associated in this thread, I posted that if a person wanted another person's words to be posted publicly, then the demander should do the legwork, not expect the demander's opponent to do it for the demander. Your mistake was that you added in a prejudice to the factor, ignoring the argument and focusing only on your personal feelings, a very obvious bias, toward the demander and chose
that to be the strength of your stance. Very noble, but illogical.
Now then, your other flaw in your response is the outrageous untruth of your charge that I have ever demanded my opponent to post words I alluded to in my argument that I could get for myself. The only time I ask others to post their words is to support their OWN argument, to clarify the situation so I may formulate my opinion, or when the proof is publicly available (and I'm tired of repeating myself). Please make sure this sinks in, G'nort, because
I am not very tolerant of people who twist the truth. I have never made an argument using evidence of someone else's words without directly quoting them within the text of my argument or citing where the words can be found that can be researched at anyone's leisure. If my proof is not accessible to the general public, then, yes, I am obligated to provide the text. However, if the proof is accessible at the very least to the person I am arguing
with, then they are just as responsible for doing their own legwork to verify the validity of my claim or support their opposing claim.
From what I can understand here, words were spoken/heard by both Jona and Drake. If the strength of Drakewyn's argument is based on what Jonalyn said, Drakewyn is obligated to provide these words to support her argument. If she, on her own, cannot bring forth the words that are the very basis of her argument, then she is simply ill-prepared and wasting everyone's time with her demands.
"Or is someone afraid of the truth?"
I see. So I either see it G'nort's way or I must be afraid of the truth. What a lovely false dichotomy. Did it occur to you that I do not KNOW what the truth is here? I want to know what was said too, and it makes no sense why Drakewyn would tease and refuse to post the very words which supposedly make her damn argument irrefutable.
"I want Jona to post her own words up for all to see. And Drake shouldn't have to post them."
Yes, Drake should. If Drakewyn charges that Jonalyn said something so damning, by the Goddess, POST IT ALREADY.
"I'm not defending her now in this argument."
Yes, you are. You are defending her supposed right to expect others to provide the substance of her argument.
Support your own argument and provide your own proof or cite where the proof can be found, if the evidence is publicly available.
Date: 17 Jun 2000 16:54:53 EDT
G'nort, you have fallen prey to making an ad hominem attack, meaning, you never touched my argument, instead chose to attack me by focusing on my affiliation, or lack thereof, with Drakewyn.
If you don't want someone to point out your own affiliation toward Drakewyn in order to invalidate your argument (which would be fallacious and shouldn't be done) then don't you start by doing it yourself.
You must accept the argument on its own without a prejudice toward the arguer or the arguer's affiliation. If I were to sell you something and I told you that I was selling it to you at just under the current market value and I provided proof to support me, it would be fallacious for you to accuse me of making an unfair price, because, say, I stood to make a profit. However, you could successfully refute my stance if I were stating a price that was
well above the market value that you were aware of and I refused to provide you with proof of my right to establish that price ("trust me, it's cheap" is not a good support to a claim).
If we strip away the names and personalities associated in this thread, I posted that if a person wanted another person's words to be posted publicly, then the demander should do the legwork, not expect the demander's opponent to do it for the demander. Your mistake was that you added in a prejudice to the factor, ignoring the argument and focusing only on your personal feelings, a very obvious bias, toward the demander and chose
that to be the strength of your stance. Very noble, but illogical.
Now then, your other flaw in your response is the outrageous untruth of your charge that I have ever demanded my opponent to post words I alluded to in my argument that I could get for myself. The only time I ask others to post their words is to support their OWN argument, to clarify the situation so I may formulate my opinion, or when the proof is publicly available (and I'm tired of repeating myself). Please make sure this sinks in, G'nort, because
I am not very tolerant of people who twist the truth. I have never made an argument using evidence of someone else's words without directly quoting them within the text of my argument or citing where the words can be found that can be researched at anyone's leisure. If my proof is not accessible to the general public, then, yes, I am obligated to provide the text. However, if the proof is accessible at the very least to the person I am arguing
with, then they are just as responsible for doing their own legwork to verify the validity of my claim or support their opposing claim.
From what I can understand here, words were spoken/heard by both Jona and Drake. If the strength of Drakewyn's argument is based on what Jonalyn said, Drakewyn is obligated to provide these words to support her argument. If she, on her own, cannot bring forth the words that are the very basis of her argument, then she is simply ill-prepared and wasting everyone's time with her demands.
"Or is someone afraid of the truth?"
I see. So I either see it G'nort's way or I must be afraid of the truth. What a lovely false dichotomy. Did it occur to you that I do not KNOW what the truth is here? I want to know what was said too, and it makes no sense why Drakewyn would tease and refuse to post the very words which supposedly make her damn argument irrefutable.
"I want Jona to post her own words up for all to see. And Drake shouldn't have to post them."
Yes, Drake should. If Drakewyn charges that Jonalyn said something so damning, by the Goddess, POST IT ALREADY.
"I'm not defending her now in this argument."
Yes, you are. You are defending her supposed right to expect others to provide the substance of her argument.
Support your own argument and provide your own proof or cite where the proof can be found, if the evidence is publicly available.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: quickvarmg@aol.com (QuickVarMG)
Date: 17 Jun 2000 17:24:53 EDT
Here's a solution... Drake said that she said one thing, and Jona is telling her to post up what Drake said.
Jona said that Drake said something else, and Drake is telling her to post up what Drake said.
How about if Jona posts up what she thinks Drake said, and Drake posts up what she thinks she said herself?
Then we'd be back at square one, where one will call the other a liar, but instead of hearing each one say "I dare ya... I double dare ya... I double dog dare ya... I triple dog dare ya... etc." why not just post up how you heard/said what you heard/said and let the other do the same thing?
It's kind of like you're trading gloves and taking turns slapping each other across the face with it.
Var Medici-Giovanni
Proud Father, Proud Husband
Date: 17 Jun 2000 17:24:53 EDT
Here's a solution... Drake said that she said one thing, and Jona is telling her to post up what Drake said.
Jona said that Drake said something else, and Drake is telling her to post up what Drake said.
How about if Jona posts up what she thinks Drake said, and Drake posts up what she thinks she said herself?
Then we'd be back at square one, where one will call the other a liar, but instead of hearing each one say "I dare ya... I double dare ya... I double dog dare ya... I triple dog dare ya... etc." why not just post up how you heard/said what you heard/said and let the other do the same thing?
It's kind of like you're trading gloves and taking turns slapping each other across the face with it.
Var Medici-Giovanni
Proud Father, Proud Husband
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: zenithi@aol.com (Zenith I)
Date: 17 Jun 2000 17:32:59 EDT
Don't you ever get tired of doing this?
I mean, it doesn't bother me if you two want to argue all day long. I don't have to read it.
But if you think this is the best use of your time, I really don't know whether to laugh or feel sorry for you.
Me, I just shoot at people I don't like.
Date: 17 Jun 2000 17:32:59 EDT
Don't you ever get tired of doing this?
I mean, it doesn't bother me if you two want to argue all day long. I don't have to read it.
But if you think this is the best use of your time, I really don't know whether to laugh or feel sorry for you.
Me, I just shoot at people I don't like.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: gnrtdrgoon@aol.com (GnrtDrgoon)
Date: 17 Jun 2000 18:49:47 EDT
"If we strip away the names and personalities associated in this thread, I posted that if a person wanted another person's words to be posted publicly, then the demander should do the legwork, not expect the demander's opponent to do it for the demander."
I'll assume then you don't approve of Jonalyns tactics of doing the opposite uncountable times in the past against Drakewyn, then? That is the basis of my previous post. (Continue reading till the end where I state where my post should have been directed.)
"Your mistake was that you added in a prejudice to the factor, ignoring the argument and focusing only on your personal feelings, a very obvious bias, toward the demander and chose that to be the strength of your stance. Very noble, but illogical."
Mirror.
"Now then, your other flaw in your response is the outrageous untruth of your charge that I have ever demanded my opponent to post words I alluded to in my argument that I could get for myself. The only time I ask others to post their words is to support their OWN argument, to clarify the situation so I may formulate my opinion, or when the proof is publicly available (and I'm tired of repeating myself). Please make sure this sinks in, G'nort,
because I am not very tolerant of people who twist the truth. I have never made an argument using evidence of someone else's words without directly quoting them within the text of my argument or citing where the words can be found that can be researched at anyone's leisure. If my proof is not accessible to the general public, then, yes, I am obligated to provide the text. However, if the proof is accessible at the very least to the person I am
arguing with, then they are just as responsible for doing their own legwork to verify the validity of my claim or support their opposing claim."
If you have not made demands in the past against Drake to provide proof of what she's accused of, then I apologize for mistaking you for Jonalyn. This is something easily researched, and time permitting, I'll do just that to make sure I was incorrect.
"From what I can understand here, words were spoken/heard by both Jona and Drake. If the strength of Drakewyn's argument is based on what Jonalyn said, Drakewyn is obligated to provide these words to support her argument. If she, on her own, cannot bring forth the words that are the very basis of her argument, then she is simply ill-prepared and wasting everyone's time with her demands."
I can and do agree with this statement. However, I argue against Jona in this case because the shoe is on the other foot, so to speak. In the past, Jona has frequently done the opposite and been accuser, but demanding the accused bring forth the words that are the basis of the accusers arguments.
"Or is someone afraid of the truth?"
"I see. So I either see it G'nort's way or I must be afraid of the truth. What a lovely false dichotomy. Did it occur to you that I do not KNOW what the truth is here? I want to know what was said too, and it makes no sense why Drakewyn would tease and refuse to post the very words which supposedly make her damn argument irrefutable."
My referring to someone being afraid of the truth is directed to Jonalyn, not you, Morgan. In fact, most of my post was in reference to Jona rather than you. I probably should have mentioned that in it. My error there. I never claimed you did know about this situation. Nor would I have. Neither of us were present when whatever occurred occurred, so whatever information we have is merely second hand, and could have been tampered with. I am not
making any references to the actual incidents. What I am totally referring to is the fact that at least Jonalyn has told Drake several times to do her research on what Drakewyn said or did on certain occasions, but when Drake calls upon Jonalyn to research on what Jonalyn did on a certain occasion, you and Jona both are telling Drake to do it. I see Drake telling Jona to post her words as sauce for the goose. Revenge, of a sort. I don't think
there's anything wrong with revenge, myself. I would have done the same thing.
"I want Jona to post her own words up for all to see. And Drake shouldn't have to post them."
"Yes, Drake should. If Drakewyn charges that Jonalyn said something so damning, by the Goddess, POST IT ALREADY."
Yet, when Jonalyn charges that Drake did something so damning, Drake must do the research and post it? Because that's what I'm arguing over. I'm all for letting the *Accuser* provide proof of the accusations. However, many times has Jonalyn *Accused* Drake, yet Never has Jonalyn provided proof. She simply says "If you want proof, read the boards" or something to that effect. I'm sorry, but that doesn't hold water. The accuser definitely should
show proof of wrongdoing. Yet, that has never happened. So, when Jona is accused, her words change. Now Jona is saying for Drake to provide proof. Let me ask. When someone who is very often an accuser provides No proof of anything and makes demands that the accused do all the work, Why should that person receive any different treatment? I make demands of Jona due to the fact that Jona makes demands of others.
"I'm not defending her now in this argument."
"Yes, you are. You are defending her supposed right to expect others to provide the substance of her argument."
You misunderstand, probably due to my poor wording. What I was meaning there is that I am not defending Drakewyn in reference to what was said or not said by Jona. I'm not defending what happened on the occasion in question. I cannot because I was not there. My fault for faulty wording.
In retrospect, I suppose I should have directed my post more towards Jonalyn rather than to you, Morgan. That was my error.
Support your own argument and provide your own proof or cite where the proof can be found, if the evidence is publicly available.
If only Jonalyn could realize this. It would end many of her accusations easily. I hope you don't mind if I copy this and quote you when the situations arise. I'll be sure to credit you with the qoute. :)
G
Date: 17 Jun 2000 18:49:47 EDT
"If we strip away the names and personalities associated in this thread, I posted that if a person wanted another person's words to be posted publicly, then the demander should do the legwork, not expect the demander's opponent to do it for the demander."
I'll assume then you don't approve of Jonalyns tactics of doing the opposite uncountable times in the past against Drakewyn, then? That is the basis of my previous post. (Continue reading till the end where I state where my post should have been directed.)
"Your mistake was that you added in a prejudice to the factor, ignoring the argument and focusing only on your personal feelings, a very obvious bias, toward the demander and chose that to be the strength of your stance. Very noble, but illogical."
Mirror.
"Now then, your other flaw in your response is the outrageous untruth of your charge that I have ever demanded my opponent to post words I alluded to in my argument that I could get for myself. The only time I ask others to post their words is to support their OWN argument, to clarify the situation so I may formulate my opinion, or when the proof is publicly available (and I'm tired of repeating myself). Please make sure this sinks in, G'nort,
because I am not very tolerant of people who twist the truth. I have never made an argument using evidence of someone else's words without directly quoting them within the text of my argument or citing where the words can be found that can be researched at anyone's leisure. If my proof is not accessible to the general public, then, yes, I am obligated to provide the text. However, if the proof is accessible at the very least to the person I am
arguing with, then they are just as responsible for doing their own legwork to verify the validity of my claim or support their opposing claim."
If you have not made demands in the past against Drake to provide proof of what she's accused of, then I apologize for mistaking you for Jonalyn. This is something easily researched, and time permitting, I'll do just that to make sure I was incorrect.
"From what I can understand here, words were spoken/heard by both Jona and Drake. If the strength of Drakewyn's argument is based on what Jonalyn said, Drakewyn is obligated to provide these words to support her argument. If she, on her own, cannot bring forth the words that are the very basis of her argument, then she is simply ill-prepared and wasting everyone's time with her demands."
I can and do agree with this statement. However, I argue against Jona in this case because the shoe is on the other foot, so to speak. In the past, Jona has frequently done the opposite and been accuser, but demanding the accused bring forth the words that are the basis of the accusers arguments.
"Or is someone afraid of the truth?"
"I see. So I either see it G'nort's way or I must be afraid of the truth. What a lovely false dichotomy. Did it occur to you that I do not KNOW what the truth is here? I want to know what was said too, and it makes no sense why Drakewyn would tease and refuse to post the very words which supposedly make her damn argument irrefutable."
My referring to someone being afraid of the truth is directed to Jonalyn, not you, Morgan. In fact, most of my post was in reference to Jona rather than you. I probably should have mentioned that in it. My error there. I never claimed you did know about this situation. Nor would I have. Neither of us were present when whatever occurred occurred, so whatever information we have is merely second hand, and could have been tampered with. I am not
making any references to the actual incidents. What I am totally referring to is the fact that at least Jonalyn has told Drake several times to do her research on what Drakewyn said or did on certain occasions, but when Drake calls upon Jonalyn to research on what Jonalyn did on a certain occasion, you and Jona both are telling Drake to do it. I see Drake telling Jona to post her words as sauce for the goose. Revenge, of a sort. I don't think
there's anything wrong with revenge, myself. I would have done the same thing.
"I want Jona to post her own words up for all to see. And Drake shouldn't have to post them."
"Yes, Drake should. If Drakewyn charges that Jonalyn said something so damning, by the Goddess, POST IT ALREADY."
Yet, when Jonalyn charges that Drake did something so damning, Drake must do the research and post it? Because that's what I'm arguing over. I'm all for letting the *Accuser* provide proof of the accusations. However, many times has Jonalyn *Accused* Drake, yet Never has Jonalyn provided proof. She simply says "If you want proof, read the boards" or something to that effect. I'm sorry, but that doesn't hold water. The accuser definitely should
show proof of wrongdoing. Yet, that has never happened. So, when Jona is accused, her words change. Now Jona is saying for Drake to provide proof. Let me ask. When someone who is very often an accuser provides No proof of anything and makes demands that the accused do all the work, Why should that person receive any different treatment? I make demands of Jona due to the fact that Jona makes demands of others.
"I'm not defending her now in this argument."
"Yes, you are. You are defending her supposed right to expect others to provide the substance of her argument."
You misunderstand, probably due to my poor wording. What I was meaning there is that I am not defending Drakewyn in reference to what was said or not said by Jona. I'm not defending what happened on the occasion in question. I cannot because I was not there. My fault for faulty wording.
In retrospect, I suppose I should have directed my post more towards Jonalyn rather than to you, Morgan. That was my error.
Support your own argument and provide your own proof or cite where the proof can be found, if the evidence is publicly available.
If only Jonalyn could realize this. It would end many of her accusations easily. I hope you don't mind if I copy this and quote you when the situations arise. I'll be sure to credit you with the qoute. :)
G
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: drakewyni@aol.com (Drakewyn I)
Date: 19 Jun 2000 00:07:24 EDT
Simply put.
Unlike Starfare, I do not have some purported "magical quill" that remembers verbatum ever word that is said in it's presence.
I know what was said that night. I am reasonably certain that both Alais and Nova heard what was said that night.
Until she gives evidence to the contrary, which she patently cannot, she did not duel me that night. That is the salient fact of my statement. She refused to step into the dueling ring that night.
I am certain that no one could deny that Lady Alais would not have been a most excellent and impartial judge of such a contest, so Starfare did not use the lack of a judge as her arguement. She simply did not duel me.
I have presented my case. Refute it.
Lady Drake, aka the Gryphon.
Date: 19 Jun 2000 00:07:24 EDT
Simply put.
Unlike Starfare, I do not have some purported "magical quill" that remembers verbatum ever word that is said in it's presence.
I know what was said that night. I am reasonably certain that both Alais and Nova heard what was said that night.
Until she gives evidence to the contrary, which she patently cannot, she did not duel me that night. That is the salient fact of my statement. She refused to step into the dueling ring that night.
I am certain that no one could deny that Lady Alais would not have been a most excellent and impartial judge of such a contest, so Starfare did not use the lack of a judge as her arguement. She simply did not duel me.
I have presented my case. Refute it.
Lady Drake, aka the Gryphon.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: jonalyn@aol.com (Jonalyn)
Date: 19 Jun 2000 15:20:44 EDT
Madame Silvertree,
So like thee, Madame, to again alter thine comments. First thee penned that I refused to duel thee, now thee pen that I dinna duel thee. I shall certes nae deny th' latter, Madame, though the former ist but another lie that though hast penned upon this ancient cork. Thou art grasping ast usual for straws in thine attempt to deny the verra words thou didst spout that eve ast well ast those which thee hae subsequently penned upon this cork.
That I dinna duel thee that eve ist nae of import, Madame. Thou didst pen that I refused thee, a patent falsehood. In thine desperate attempt to avoid making admission that the comments thee didst make with regard to the Bishop were false, thee but make further specious rantings.
The salient fact, Madame, ist that thou art again shown to be a liar, ast well ast so wretchedly insecure, thee attempt to weasel thine way out of the ensnaring web of lies which thou be weaving around thineself.
Thine case, Madame? Refute what? That I dinna duel thee that eve? I nae deny that. That I refused to duel thee? Prove that statement, Madame.
Jonalyn Starfare
Date: 19 Jun 2000 15:20:44 EDT
Madame Silvertree,
So like thee, Madame, to again alter thine comments. First thee penned that I refused to duel thee, now thee pen that I dinna duel thee. I shall certes nae deny th' latter, Madame, though the former ist but another lie that though hast penned upon this ancient cork. Thou art grasping ast usual for straws in thine attempt to deny the verra words thou didst spout that eve ast well ast those which thee hae subsequently penned upon this cork.
That I dinna duel thee that eve ist nae of import, Madame. Thou didst pen that I refused thee, a patent falsehood. In thine desperate attempt to avoid making admission that the comments thee didst make with regard to the Bishop were false, thee but make further specious rantings.
The salient fact, Madame, ist that thou art again shown to be a liar, ast well ast so wretchedly insecure, thee attempt to weasel thine way out of the ensnaring web of lies which thou be weaving around thineself.
Thine case, Madame? Refute what? That I dinna duel thee that eve? I nae deny that. That I refused to duel thee? Prove that statement, Madame.
Jonalyn Starfare
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: morganalefay@aol.com (Morgana le Fay)
Date: 19 Jun 2000 15:21:50 EDT
"Unlike Starfare, I do not have some purported "magical quill" that remembers verbatum ever word that is said in it's presence."
A. Then do not refer to words spoken that you cannot provide for public scrutiny. At the very least, offer a paraphrase or a recollection of what was said. This teasing "you know what was said" affair is tiresome.
B. I would suggest, then, you find alternative methods of recordkeeping if you are to continue making reference to conversation and events as the crux of your arguments. It is your responsibility to back up what you argue. If you cannot back it up, then you have no case and should really find another pursuit to spend your time on.
I am sure such a fine magic user as yourself can think of some way to conjure up more useful tools than showers of golden rosepetals upon your entry. After all, you are powerful enough to alter the Ward and put tracing spells out there in the great beyond. Surely, you can find a way to record significant events, especially against someone who can, and will, record and present that information to damn you and your actions.
Your current course of defense and accuse is sorely lacking in the proof department. To not take steps to "cover your arse" is foolhardy and lazy.
Date: 19 Jun 2000 15:21:50 EDT
"Unlike Starfare, I do not have some purported "magical quill" that remembers verbatum ever word that is said in it's presence."
A. Then do not refer to words spoken that you cannot provide for public scrutiny. At the very least, offer a paraphrase or a recollection of what was said. This teasing "you know what was said" affair is tiresome.
B. I would suggest, then, you find alternative methods of recordkeeping if you are to continue making reference to conversation and events as the crux of your arguments. It is your responsibility to back up what you argue. If you cannot back it up, then you have no case and should really find another pursuit to spend your time on.
I am sure such a fine magic user as yourself can think of some way to conjure up more useful tools than showers of golden rosepetals upon your entry. After all, you are powerful enough to alter the Ward and put tracing spells out there in the great beyond. Surely, you can find a way to record significant events, especially against someone who can, and will, record and present that information to damn you and your actions.
Your current course of defense and accuse is sorely lacking in the proof department. To not take steps to "cover your arse" is foolhardy and lazy.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: darylkyle@aol.com (Daryl Kyle)
Date: 19 Jun 2000 15:42:44 EDT
::sighs:: Somethings never change
Date: 19 Jun 2000 15:42:44 EDT
::sighs:: Somethings never change
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: morganalefay@aol.com (Morgana le Fay)
Date: 19 Jun 2000 15:48:49 EDT
"However, many times has Jonalyn *Accused* Drake, yet Never has Jonalyn provided proof. She simply says "If you want proof, read the boards" or something to that effect. I'm sorry, but that doesn't hold water. The accuser definitely should
show proof of wrongdoing."
G'nort, if it is "on the boards" I do consider that in the public domain and is easily researchable by everyone, not just the people debating the issue, who wishes to find out for themselves the veracity of the charge. In other words, the proof is already here... it can be easily "shown" by doing a bit of research.
I have learned to present what was written once and I will not do it again simply because I am tired of repeating myself. Someone will always say, "show me!" And I reply, "I already did. I am not going to do your work for you anymore and I am not going to be your memory. Flip some pages back to the LAST time I quoted the words."
In this particular instance (if I even understand this mess correctly), either Jonalyn or Drakewyn said something in an environment that not everyone was witness to or could research for themselves, and either Jonalyn or Drakewyn refuse to let us know what was said, instead expecting the other person to let us know what was said, but yet expecting us to accept that whatever it was that was said is of utmost importance to this issue, but yet we are
not privvy to what was said. Confusing? Yes, I agree.
Now then, I do know that Jonalyn keeps quite detailed records that have always coincided with my records in the event we have been present at the same time for the same event. Because of this, I generally do not doubt the truthfulness of what she says for I can also easily ask others that were present, "is this true? Did this happen?"
On the flipside, I have never to my recollection ever seen Drakewyn refer to any sort of records that she might keep, she generally goes from her memory. This is fine and well; however, if she does not even paraphrase for us what was said/heard, how can any of us go to other people present and ask, "do you think this is a fair paraphrase/summary of what occurred?"
Drakewyn, in this instance, for example, has charged that Jonalyn or Drakewyn said something, but will not tell us what that is, instead says that Nova and some other person were there to witness and that they should verify that this "something" was said. Why not just get to the bottom of this and tell us yourself, Drakewyn, if you think it is so important? All of this dancing around and pushing burdens off on other people is tiresome.
People post here about events and we read and formulate our opinions. Many of us wish to know the details and have the ability to confirm for ourselves the truthfulness of the claims before we make a judgement and speak on the issue. This is opposed to the people that upon hearing someone accuse someone of a misdeed, never ask for details or proof, instead formulating their opinion based on who they favor more, or based on their own prejudices on the
topic (or person). An example would be if Well Loved Person posted, "Hated Person burned down the rings and said terrible things about you (followed by a list of things that Hated Person allegedly said)," and everyone jumps on Hated Person without once considering that Well Loved Person just might be lying and have no proof to back up the charge.
This is not reasonable nor logical.
Sadly, however, it is typical lately in this environment.
Date: 19 Jun 2000 15:48:49 EDT
"However, many times has Jonalyn *Accused* Drake, yet Never has Jonalyn provided proof. She simply says "If you want proof, read the boards" or something to that effect. I'm sorry, but that doesn't hold water. The accuser definitely should
show proof of wrongdoing."
G'nort, if it is "on the boards" I do consider that in the public domain and is easily researchable by everyone, not just the people debating the issue, who wishes to find out for themselves the veracity of the charge. In other words, the proof is already here... it can be easily "shown" by doing a bit of research.
I have learned to present what was written once and I will not do it again simply because I am tired of repeating myself. Someone will always say, "show me!" And I reply, "I already did. I am not going to do your work for you anymore and I am not going to be your memory. Flip some pages back to the LAST time I quoted the words."
In this particular instance (if I even understand this mess correctly), either Jonalyn or Drakewyn said something in an environment that not everyone was witness to or could research for themselves, and either Jonalyn or Drakewyn refuse to let us know what was said, instead expecting the other person to let us know what was said, but yet expecting us to accept that whatever it was that was said is of utmost importance to this issue, but yet we are
not privvy to what was said. Confusing? Yes, I agree.
Now then, I do know that Jonalyn keeps quite detailed records that have always coincided with my records in the event we have been present at the same time for the same event. Because of this, I generally do not doubt the truthfulness of what she says for I can also easily ask others that were present, "is this true? Did this happen?"
On the flipside, I have never to my recollection ever seen Drakewyn refer to any sort of records that she might keep, she generally goes from her memory. This is fine and well; however, if she does not even paraphrase for us what was said/heard, how can any of us go to other people present and ask, "do you think this is a fair paraphrase/summary of what occurred?"
Drakewyn, in this instance, for example, has charged that Jonalyn or Drakewyn said something, but will not tell us what that is, instead says that Nova and some other person were there to witness and that they should verify that this "something" was said. Why not just get to the bottom of this and tell us yourself, Drakewyn, if you think it is so important? All of this dancing around and pushing burdens off on other people is tiresome.
People post here about events and we read and formulate our opinions. Many of us wish to know the details and have the ability to confirm for ourselves the truthfulness of the claims before we make a judgement and speak on the issue. This is opposed to the people that upon hearing someone accuse someone of a misdeed, never ask for details or proof, instead formulating their opinion based on who they favor more, or based on their own prejudices on the
topic (or person). An example would be if Well Loved Person posted, "Hated Person burned down the rings and said terrible things about you (followed by a list of things that Hated Person allegedly said)," and everyone jumps on Hated Person without once considering that Well Loved Person just might be lying and have no proof to back up the charge.
This is not reasonable nor logical.
Sadly, however, it is typical lately in this environment.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: sidarthax@aol.com (Sidartha x)
Date: 19 Jun 2000 21:46:07 EDT
If one wishes to point fingers, they'd damned well better have the proof to back it up. It doesn't matter WHO you are or who you *think* you are.
Certainly this is a simple concept. I fail to see why it's going over so many people's heads.
~Sidartha Elgarette
Date: 19 Jun 2000 21:46:07 EDT
If one wishes to point fingers, they'd damned well better have the proof to back it up. It doesn't matter WHO you are or who you *think* you are.
Certainly this is a simple concept. I fail to see why it's going over so many people's heads.
~Sidartha Elgarette
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: drakewyni@aol.com (Drakewyn I)
Date: 20 Jun 2000 00:51:29 EDT
My recollection of the event.
I pressed Starfare multiple time about the duel. My questions were always of the variety of "will you duel or not?"
Starfare refused to answer these questions directly, as is her normal habit when faced with nearly any yes or no question.
When finally pressed with the question of "Do you refuse to duel?"
Her reply was to the effect that she found the idea of dueling upon equal ground was unsatisfactory. She stated she would not duel except under her own conditions.
Present here how the conditions of this duel... the requirements of 1) no use of personal magic; 2) the Ward be active and verified as such; 3) the duel be steel blade against steel blade, skill alone... could possibly be considered unfavorable.
Lady Drake, aka the Gryphon.
Date: 20 Jun 2000 00:51:29 EDT
My recollection of the event.
I pressed Starfare multiple time about the duel. My questions were always of the variety of "will you duel or not?"
Starfare refused to answer these questions directly, as is her normal habit when faced with nearly any yes or no question.
When finally pressed with the question of "Do you refuse to duel?"
Her reply was to the effect that she found the idea of dueling upon equal ground was unsatisfactory. She stated she would not duel except under her own conditions.
Present here how the conditions of this duel... the requirements of 1) no use of personal magic; 2) the Ward be active and verified as such; 3) the duel be steel blade against steel blade, skill alone... could possibly be considered unfavorable.
Lady Drake, aka the Gryphon.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: leducblanc@aol.com (LeDucBlanc)
Date: 20 Jun 2000 01:44:37 EDT
Lady Starfare and Lady Silvertree,
I would wish to very strongly suggest that the two of you make this dispute a private one. I understand the feeling that a public statement of the nature of the one originally made often seems to demand a public response. However, this dispute is not likely to be settled in this manner.
At the very best, a public exchange of this kind of bitterness will only escalate what already seems to be quite an unpleasant feeling on both sides. At the very worst it will, as it has already done, incite friends of one party or the other to take sides with one party against the other. There is enough strife on the boards in general without individuals posting for no other reason than to incite more strife.
In my opinion this entire thread is in the worst possible taste. The original post was pointless, petty, and not worth answering. That it was answered and that it has blown up into an exchange of accusations like this one tends to negatively reflect upon the maturity of both the two principals and of those who have taken sides in one way or another. The best way for this to be resolved would be for one of the principles of this dispute to take the
very mature step of ignoring the statements of the other. A slightly less excellent but still quite adult way of dealing with the problem would be to address it privately.
I apologize if this statement offends anyone, particularly Drakewyn and G'nort (whom I consider to be my good friends), but for two people to constantly snipe at one another across the cork seems terribly childish. For other individuals to insert themselves into such a discussion for any other reason than to try to end it seems equally childish.
I also wish to apologize, especially to the Lady le Fey who has described a similar post as such in the past, if this post seems paternalistic, superior, or condescending in any way. However, it is hard to address individuals as adults when they persist in behaving as children. What does this thread contribute to the community except to enflame and already extremely fierce personal dispute?
Duc Percival Marchand de Clermont
Warlord of the Duel of Swords
The White Duke
Date: 20 Jun 2000 01:44:37 EDT
Lady Starfare and Lady Silvertree,
I would wish to very strongly suggest that the two of you make this dispute a private one. I understand the feeling that a public statement of the nature of the one originally made often seems to demand a public response. However, this dispute is not likely to be settled in this manner.
At the very best, a public exchange of this kind of bitterness will only escalate what already seems to be quite an unpleasant feeling on both sides. At the very worst it will, as it has already done, incite friends of one party or the other to take sides with one party against the other. There is enough strife on the boards in general without individuals posting for no other reason than to incite more strife.
In my opinion this entire thread is in the worst possible taste. The original post was pointless, petty, and not worth answering. That it was answered and that it has blown up into an exchange of accusations like this one tends to negatively reflect upon the maturity of both the two principals and of those who have taken sides in one way or another. The best way for this to be resolved would be for one of the principles of this dispute to take the
very mature step of ignoring the statements of the other. A slightly less excellent but still quite adult way of dealing with the problem would be to address it privately.
I apologize if this statement offends anyone, particularly Drakewyn and G'nort (whom I consider to be my good friends), but for two people to constantly snipe at one another across the cork seems terribly childish. For other individuals to insert themselves into such a discussion for any other reason than to try to end it seems equally childish.
I also wish to apologize, especially to the Lady le Fey who has described a similar post as such in the past, if this post seems paternalistic, superior, or condescending in any way. However, it is hard to address individuals as adults when they persist in behaving as children. What does this thread contribute to the community except to enflame and already extremely fierce personal dispute?
Duc Percival Marchand de Clermont
Warlord of the Duel of Swords
The White Duke
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: novagreys@aol.com (Nova GreyS)
Date: 20 Jun 2000 11:01:57 EDT
I think the two of them should stop jawing and get to beating the hell out of each other. Leave the mouthing off to us professionals and just work out all that rage in either the ring or interpersonal relationships like the rest of us.
-NGS
Date: 20 Jun 2000 11:01:57 EDT
I think the two of them should stop jawing and get to beating the hell out of each other. Leave the mouthing off to us professionals and just work out all that rage in either the ring or interpersonal relationships like the rest of us.
-NGS
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: morganalefay@aol.com (Morgana le Fay)
Date: 20 Jun 2000 16:48:30 EDT
My opinion on the duel is you should not expect anyone to hold back. If Jonalyn uses magic in her duel, then you simply must be prepared to counter with your own offensive and defensive tactics.
I would not accept your terms either. They benefit no one but yourself. You are certainly welcome to try manipulating your opponents into dueling you when you have the advantage; however, do not expect compliance.
Good day.
Date: 20 Jun 2000 16:48:30 EDT
My opinion on the duel is you should not expect anyone to hold back. If Jonalyn uses magic in her duel, then you simply must be prepared to counter with your own offensive and defensive tactics.
I would not accept your terms either. They benefit no one but yourself. You are certainly welcome to try manipulating your opponents into dueling you when you have the advantage; however, do not expect compliance.
Good day.