From: ianmackenzie@aol.com (Ian MacKenzie)
Date: 24 Jan 2000 03:20:00 EST
Lord Cassius:
"I stand corrected, and offer my sincere apologies to both you and the Lady Starfare. I would be interested in hearing what happened, I do not appreciate people who would lie to a respected personage such as yourself, nor smear my friend's name."
No, I must apologize for lending you the wrong impression by not fully explaining. I was informed that Lord Colestae was bellowing something about "Ian's <censored>." Given the nature of the word involved, the party who spoke to me assumed, as I probably would have, that the person being referred to in such an unsavory manner was Sidartha.
Given that apparently you were the intended target, however, I then understood the terminology to be wholly accurate.
With jocularity,
Ian Rex.
Renovations
-
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
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: quickvarmg@aol.com (QuickVarMG)
Date: 24 Jan 2000 04:06:19 EST
""Fit of rage" indeed. Aparantly you know little about Ian MacKenzie. If he were truly in a "fit of rage" I doubt he would stop at simply disassembling skyboxes.
Learn to grow up and stop blowing things out of porportion, Var."
Ironic you ask me to grow up when you say yourself Ian would do more than disassemble the skyboxes if he were mad. Oh well, that's your opinion.
"Var, I take offense to this statement. I agree with Drakewyn, in that Ian acted rashly, but in his rights. Comparing this action to Meth's descruction of the 8th ring is unneccessary, inaccurate, and just plain tasteless. Good day."
Granted, it is anyone's rights to act stupidly and childishly. I sometimes get frustrated when I lose a lot of duels at one time. However, if I were to break my rapier in half and say, "I can do whatever I want with it, it's mine." I can assure you a lot of people would say I'd be acting childish, especially when Ian could have simply resolved the situation by saying, "Val, I'd appreciate it if you didn't touch the skyboxes."
But I ask you, Cas... How is it unnecessary, inaccurate, or in poor taste? The only difference I see is that the skybox is Ian's. The destruction of both items were painfully childish and rash. It's childish and stupid when you break something, regardless of whether or not it's yours. Both issues could have been resolved without the destruction of something. Also, both blame their actions on someone else. "It's because Aspen didn't
reschedule" or whatever it was... "It's because Val intended on renovating my property." Would you feel better if he didn't make some call to action, and instead ignored them? Yes, he should have asked Ian because it's his property, but it is Val's job to take care of an issue. Improperly done? Yes. Something worth crying about? No.
Proceed to make comparisons to Meth at my own risk, indeed. Ian's petty little outbursts should be expected by now. Maybe Cas is right about comparing Ian to Meth as an incorrect analogy. I don't think Meth would be childish enough to make threats because someone says and/or thinks he's an idiot.
Var Medici-Giovanni
Proud Father, Proud Husband
Date: 24 Jan 2000 04:06:19 EST
""Fit of rage" indeed. Aparantly you know little about Ian MacKenzie. If he were truly in a "fit of rage" I doubt he would stop at simply disassembling skyboxes.
Learn to grow up and stop blowing things out of porportion, Var."
Ironic you ask me to grow up when you say yourself Ian would do more than disassemble the skyboxes if he were mad. Oh well, that's your opinion.
"Var, I take offense to this statement. I agree with Drakewyn, in that Ian acted rashly, but in his rights. Comparing this action to Meth's descruction of the 8th ring is unneccessary, inaccurate, and just plain tasteless. Good day."
Granted, it is anyone's rights to act stupidly and childishly. I sometimes get frustrated when I lose a lot of duels at one time. However, if I were to break my rapier in half and say, "I can do whatever I want with it, it's mine." I can assure you a lot of people would say I'd be acting childish, especially when Ian could have simply resolved the situation by saying, "Val, I'd appreciate it if you didn't touch the skyboxes."
But I ask you, Cas... How is it unnecessary, inaccurate, or in poor taste? The only difference I see is that the skybox is Ian's. The destruction of both items were painfully childish and rash. It's childish and stupid when you break something, regardless of whether or not it's yours. Both issues could have been resolved without the destruction of something. Also, both blame their actions on someone else. "It's because Aspen didn't
reschedule" or whatever it was... "It's because Val intended on renovating my property." Would you feel better if he didn't make some call to action, and instead ignored them? Yes, he should have asked Ian because it's his property, but it is Val's job to take care of an issue. Improperly done? Yes. Something worth crying about? No.
Proceed to make comparisons to Meth at my own risk, indeed. Ian's petty little outbursts should be expected by now. Maybe Cas is right about comparing Ian to Meth as an incorrect analogy. I don't think Meth would be childish enough to make threats because someone says and/or thinks he's an idiot.
Var Medici-Giovanni
Proud Father, Proud Husband
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: casmaxim@aol.com (Cas Maxim)
Date: 24 Jan 2000 04:32:13 EST
> But I ask you, Cas... How is it unnecessary, inaccurate, or in poor
>taste? The only difference I see is that the skybox is Ian's. The
>destruction of both items were painfully childish and rash. It's childish
>and stupid when you break something, regardless of whether or not it's yours
The colored line makes all the difference in the world. Destroying your own property-unless you think there may be valid reason- is "childish and rash", in your own words. Destroying another's property is criminal.
Have you ever served in an army or navy, Var? When a palisade cannot be defended against Parthians or raging Goths, or some likewise threat, it may come to be more prudent to burn it, so the enemy does not get a new fort ready-made for them. Burning your own crops in battle, as we Romans did to combat Hannibal Barca centuries before my birth, is rash, but it was perceived as neccessary, lest our grain feed Hannibal's men. Yes, it was definitely rash
and definitely had consequences, but it was decided that the threat took priority. Where does this apply to Ian's situation? Simple; he destroyed his property to prevent it from being
used by others without his permission. There was a purpose to it. I don't agree with it, but my argument comes in whether or not the percieved threat actually was a threat. But it's not up to me to decide that, it's up to Ian.
> Proceed to make comparisons to Meth at my own risk, indeed. Ian's
>petty little outbursts should be expected by now. Maybe Cas is right about
>comparing Ian to Meth as an incorrect analogy. I don't think Meth would be
>childish enough to make threats because someone says and/or thinks he's an
>idiot.
I'll restate the opinion that sparked your response, and I sincerely hope you'll come to your senses and agree with me on this point:
This was inaccurate, uncalled for, and just plain tasteless. Inaccurate in that Meth made threats on people for saying he was an idiot on a daily basis. Var, you can disagree with someone's actions without trying to call them ojut verbally. It seems as if that is what you are attempting.
Cassius Gaius Maximius
Date: 24 Jan 2000 04:32:13 EST
> But I ask you, Cas... How is it unnecessary, inaccurate, or in poor
>taste? The only difference I see is that the skybox is Ian's. The
>destruction of both items were painfully childish and rash. It's childish
>and stupid when you break something, regardless of whether or not it's yours
The colored line makes all the difference in the world. Destroying your own property-unless you think there may be valid reason- is "childish and rash", in your own words. Destroying another's property is criminal.
Have you ever served in an army or navy, Var? When a palisade cannot be defended against Parthians or raging Goths, or some likewise threat, it may come to be more prudent to burn it, so the enemy does not get a new fort ready-made for them. Burning your own crops in battle, as we Romans did to combat Hannibal Barca centuries before my birth, is rash, but it was perceived as neccessary, lest our grain feed Hannibal's men. Yes, it was definitely rash
and definitely had consequences, but it was decided that the threat took priority. Where does this apply to Ian's situation? Simple; he destroyed his property to prevent it from being
used by others without his permission. There was a purpose to it. I don't agree with it, but my argument comes in whether or not the percieved threat actually was a threat. But it's not up to me to decide that, it's up to Ian.
> Proceed to make comparisons to Meth at my own risk, indeed. Ian's
>petty little outbursts should be expected by now. Maybe Cas is right about
>comparing Ian to Meth as an incorrect analogy. I don't think Meth would be
>childish enough to make threats because someone says and/or thinks he's an
>idiot.
I'll restate the opinion that sparked your response, and I sincerely hope you'll come to your senses and agree with me on this point:
This was inaccurate, uncalled for, and just plain tasteless. Inaccurate in that Meth made threats on people for saying he was an idiot on a daily basis. Var, you can disagree with someone's actions without trying to call them ojut verbally. It seems as if that is what you are attempting.
Cassius Gaius Maximius
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: sidarthax@aol.com (Sidartha x)
Date: 24 Jan 2000 04:48:08 EST
Var~
Perhaps you can explain to us all why the adjectives used to describe Ian have worsened with each post you've written. What a man does with HIS OWN PROPERTY is his OWN business, not yours.
The comparisson to Methous' destruction of the Eighth is the UTMOST stupidity. Why? Because the difference between the two actions are so blatant as to be able to be seen even by a child. Methous not ONCE owned the Eighth Ring, he held the property of the Duel of Swords. Ian, however, removed HIS OWN property once he realized that someone was going to break into and alter it.
I ask you, where is the similarity between Methous destroying the property of the DoS and Ian removing HIS OWN property?
~Sidartha
Date: 24 Jan 2000 04:48:08 EST
Var~
Perhaps you can explain to us all why the adjectives used to describe Ian have worsened with each post you've written. What a man does with HIS OWN PROPERTY is his OWN business, not yours.
The comparisson to Methous' destruction of the Eighth is the UTMOST stupidity. Why? Because the difference between the two actions are so blatant as to be able to be seen even by a child. Methous not ONCE owned the Eighth Ring, he held the property of the Duel of Swords. Ian, however, removed HIS OWN property once he realized that someone was going to break into and alter it.
I ask you, where is the similarity between Methous destroying the property of the DoS and Ian removing HIS OWN property?
~Sidartha
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: quickvarmg@aol.com (QuickVarMG)
Date: 24 Jan 2000 04:57:18 EST
"Have you ever served in an army or navy, Var? When a palisade cannot be defended against Parthians or raging Goths, or some likewise threat, it may come to be more prudent to burn it, so the enemy does not get a new fort ready-made for them. Burning your own crops in battle, as we Romans did to combat Hannibal Barca centuries before my birth, is rash, but it was
perceived as neccessary, lest our grain feed Hannibal's men. Yes, it was definitely rash
and definitely had consequences, but it was decided that the threat took priority. Where does this apply to Ian's situation? Simple; he destroyed his property to prevent it from being
used by others without his permission. There was a purpose to it. I don't agree with it, but my argument comes in whether or not the percieved threat actually was a threat. But it's not up to me to decide that, it's up to Ian."
Sorry, Cas, but I think that's a poor analogy. Go join a war and run into an enemy. Say, "Please don't hurt me or take me prisoner." They probably wouldn't kill you immediately, but they might torture you for a bit. This situation could have been resolved if Ian said, "Val, please don't touch the skyboxes." I don't see how Val, who seems to be working to make sure the patrons are happy, can be perceived as a threat.
Cas, this is not a battleground where we kill each other and take prisoners. To me, at least, this isn't a play pen where we just break what we want because we aren't happy. I don't care if Ian built the arena himself and he decided to burn the inside just because he woke up on the wrong side of the bed. It is childish. It is stupid. It gets on my nerves.
"This was inaccurate, uncalled for, and just plain tasteless. Inaccurate in that Meth made threats on people for saying he was an idiot on a daily basis."
Oh, so Ian and Meth DO do the same thing: make threats because people call them idiots. Thank you for clarifying it and proving my point.
"Var, you can disagree with someone's actions without trying to call them ojut verbally. It seems as if that is what you are attempting."
Sometimes I do disagree with someone without calling them out verbally. However, I'm not going to walk on eggs when Ian seems to think his little temper and threats will keep people from holding their tongue. I don't like him, simple as that. I'm sure the feeling's mutual.
Var Medici-Giovanni
Proud Father, Proud Husband
Date: 24 Jan 2000 04:57:18 EST
"Have you ever served in an army or navy, Var? When a palisade cannot be defended against Parthians or raging Goths, or some likewise threat, it may come to be more prudent to burn it, so the enemy does not get a new fort ready-made for them. Burning your own crops in battle, as we Romans did to combat Hannibal Barca centuries before my birth, is rash, but it was
perceived as neccessary, lest our grain feed Hannibal's men. Yes, it was definitely rash
and definitely had consequences, but it was decided that the threat took priority. Where does this apply to Ian's situation? Simple; he destroyed his property to prevent it from being
used by others without his permission. There was a purpose to it. I don't agree with it, but my argument comes in whether or not the percieved threat actually was a threat. But it's not up to me to decide that, it's up to Ian."
Sorry, Cas, but I think that's a poor analogy. Go join a war and run into an enemy. Say, "Please don't hurt me or take me prisoner." They probably wouldn't kill you immediately, but they might torture you for a bit. This situation could have been resolved if Ian said, "Val, please don't touch the skyboxes." I don't see how Val, who seems to be working to make sure the patrons are happy, can be perceived as a threat.
Cas, this is not a battleground where we kill each other and take prisoners. To me, at least, this isn't a play pen where we just break what we want because we aren't happy. I don't care if Ian built the arena himself and he decided to burn the inside just because he woke up on the wrong side of the bed. It is childish. It is stupid. It gets on my nerves.
"This was inaccurate, uncalled for, and just plain tasteless. Inaccurate in that Meth made threats on people for saying he was an idiot on a daily basis."
Oh, so Ian and Meth DO do the same thing: make threats because people call them idiots. Thank you for clarifying it and proving my point.
"Var, you can disagree with someone's actions without trying to call them ojut verbally. It seems as if that is what you are attempting."
Sometimes I do disagree with someone without calling them out verbally. However, I'm not going to walk on eggs when Ian seems to think his little temper and threats will keep people from holding their tongue. I don't like him, simple as that. I'm sure the feeling's mutual.
Var Medici-Giovanni
Proud Father, Proud Husband
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: quickvarmg@aol.com (QuickVarMG)
Date: 24 Jan 2000 05:12:35 EST
"Perhaps you can explain to us all why the adjectives used to describe Ian have worsened with each post you've written."
Because of your failure to comprehend reading?
"What a man does with HIS OWN PROPERTY is his OWN business, not yours."
The rather childish display happened in a place where I serve as a baron, a place where I frequent, and a place which means a lot to me. It is my business just as it's everyone else's business who cares about the arena.
"The comparisson to Methous' destruction of the Eighth is the UTMOST stupidity. Why? Because the difference between the two actions are so blatant as to be able to be seen even by a child. Methous not ONCE owned the Eighth Ring, he held the property of the Duel of Swords. Ian, however, removed HIS OWN property once he realized that someone was going to break into and alter it."
I already acknowledged the difference, Sid. I also already addressed the similarities between Ian and Meth. Both behaved like stupid little children and destroyed property when it could have been resolved in a better way. Moreover, Cas has also pointed out how Meth made threats when people called him an idiot, much like what Ian has done. The only difference is the fact that it WAS Ian's property, but that doesn't lessen the immaturity
or stupidity one bit.
Now I ask you, is there ANYTHING I said in response to your last question which I didn't say before?
Var Medici-Giovanni
Proud Father, Proud Husband
Date: 24 Jan 2000 05:12:35 EST
"Perhaps you can explain to us all why the adjectives used to describe Ian have worsened with each post you've written."
Because of your failure to comprehend reading?
"What a man does with HIS OWN PROPERTY is his OWN business, not yours."
The rather childish display happened in a place where I serve as a baron, a place where I frequent, and a place which means a lot to me. It is my business just as it's everyone else's business who cares about the arena.
"The comparisson to Methous' destruction of the Eighth is the UTMOST stupidity. Why? Because the difference between the two actions are so blatant as to be able to be seen even by a child. Methous not ONCE owned the Eighth Ring, he held the property of the Duel of Swords. Ian, however, removed HIS OWN property once he realized that someone was going to break into and alter it."
I already acknowledged the difference, Sid. I also already addressed the similarities between Ian and Meth. Both behaved like stupid little children and destroyed property when it could have been resolved in a better way. Moreover, Cas has also pointed out how Meth made threats when people called him an idiot, much like what Ian has done. The only difference is the fact that it WAS Ian's property, but that doesn't lessen the immaturity
or stupidity one bit.
Now I ask you, is there ANYTHING I said in response to your last question which I didn't say before?
Var Medici-Giovanni
Proud Father, Proud Husband
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: casmaxim@aol.com (Cas Maxim)
Date: 24 Jan 2000 05:37:06 EST
>Go join a war and run into an enemy. Say, "Please don't hurt me or take me
>prisoner." They probably wouldn't kill you immediately, but they might
>torture you for a bit.
Help me out here Var. What in the hell does this have to do with the subject? My analogy compared the military situations to the need to protect Ian's property. When you slay a wolf in the cold woods, and step on a beetle on your kitchen floor, it may not exactly be the same consequences should you not take action, but the basic premise is there: Destroy the unwanted animal who could do unwanted
things, whether it be getting in your food, or making you it's food.
>I don't see how Val, who seems to be working to make sure the patrons are
>happy, can be perceived as a threat.
From Lord MacKenzie's view, my guess would be that he was percieved as a threat in that he was planning to make drastic alterations to Ian's property without asking permission.
>This situation could have been resolved if Ian said, "Val, please don't touch
>the skyboxes."
You obviously didn't catch this within my last couple of posts, so, I'll make it unmistakeable: I AGREED IAN ACTED RASHLY!
Now do you understand my stance there?
> Oh, so Ian and Meth DO do the same thing: make threats because people
>call them idiots. Thank you for clarifying it and proving my point.
Your point? You contradict yourself Baron.
Earlier you stated that at least Methous does not insult people for calling him stupid. And thusly, I responded: >"This was inaccurate, uncalled for, and just plain tasteless. Inaccurate in
>that Meth made threats on people for saying he was an idiot on a daily
>basis." So now, in saying Ian is like Methous in that he threatens people for thinking and saying he is stupid, you concede my earlier point-which you denied this very night-that Methous has behaved in such a manner. And then you say I proved your point.
This is akin to me thrusting you, and you saying you should get the point.
Date: 24 Jan 2000 05:37:06 EST
>Go join a war and run into an enemy. Say, "Please don't hurt me or take me
>prisoner." They probably wouldn't kill you immediately, but they might
>torture you for a bit.
Help me out here Var. What in the hell does this have to do with the subject? My analogy compared the military situations to the need to protect Ian's property. When you slay a wolf in the cold woods, and step on a beetle on your kitchen floor, it may not exactly be the same consequences should you not take action, but the basic premise is there: Destroy the unwanted animal who could do unwanted
things, whether it be getting in your food, or making you it's food.
>I don't see how Val, who seems to be working to make sure the patrons are
>happy, can be perceived as a threat.
From Lord MacKenzie's view, my guess would be that he was percieved as a threat in that he was planning to make drastic alterations to Ian's property without asking permission.
>This situation could have been resolved if Ian said, "Val, please don't touch
>the skyboxes."
You obviously didn't catch this within my last couple of posts, so, I'll make it unmistakeable: I AGREED IAN ACTED RASHLY!
Now do you understand my stance there?
> Oh, so Ian and Meth DO do the same thing: make threats because people
>call them idiots. Thank you for clarifying it and proving my point.
Your point? You contradict yourself Baron.
Earlier you stated that at least Methous does not insult people for calling him stupid. And thusly, I responded: >"This was inaccurate, uncalled for, and just plain tasteless. Inaccurate in
>that Meth made threats on people for saying he was an idiot on a daily
>basis." So now, in saying Ian is like Methous in that he threatens people for thinking and saying he is stupid, you concede my earlier point-which you denied this very night-that Methous has behaved in such a manner. And then you say I proved your point.
This is akin to me thrusting you, and you saying you should get the point.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: casmaxim@aol.com (Cas Maxim)
Date: 24 Jan 2000 05:38:58 EST
It seems the paper I posted my last retort ran out, but I ain't done.
>However, I'm not going to walk on eggs when Ian seems to think his little
>temper and threats will keep people from holding their tongue. I don't like
>him, simple as that. I'm sure the feeling's mutual
There's a difference between not tiptoeing around eggs and stomping on them, deliberately trying to smash as many as you can.
Cassius Gaius Maximius
Date: 24 Jan 2000 05:38:58 EST
It seems the paper I posted my last retort ran out, but I ain't done.
>However, I'm not going to walk on eggs when Ian seems to think his little
>temper and threats will keep people from holding their tongue. I don't like
>him, simple as that. I'm sure the feeling's mutual
There's a difference between not tiptoeing around eggs and stomping on them, deliberately trying to smash as many as you can.
Cassius Gaius Maximius
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: quickvarmg@aol.com (QuickVarMG)
Date: 24 Jan 2000 05:58:47 EST
">Go join a war and run into an enemy. Say, "Please don't hurt me or take me
>prisoner." They probably wouldn't kill you immediately, but they might
>torture you for a bit.
Help me out here Var. What in the hell does this have to do with the subject? My analogy compared the military situations to the need to protect Ian's property. When you slay a wolf in the cold woods, and step on a beetle on your kitchen floor, it may not exactly be the same consequences should you not take action, but the basic premise is there: Destroy the unwanted animal who could do unwanted
things, whether it be getting in your food, or making you it's food."
It means I think your comparison was a poor one. If you ask an enemy for mercy, you're in trouble. If Ian asked Val not to do it, then Val would have probably agreed not to do it. There is a major difference which would influence the outcome of the situation.
">This situation could have been resolved if Ian said, "Val, please don't touch
>the skyboxes."
You obviously didn't catch this within my last couple of posts, so, I'll make it unmistakeable: I AGREED IAN ACTED RASHLY!
Now do you understand my stance there?"
You seem to be the one misunderstanding. I did not say you agreed with him, I am just saying how childishly he acted. I added that in because you still seem to not understand me comparing him to Methous.
"Your point? You contradict yourself Baron.
Earlier you stated that at least Methous does not insult people for calling him stupid."
No, it's apparent we are focusing on the different points I was trying to make. I was stating how Ian's actions were comparitive to Meth's, and you asked why. You stating that Meth makes threats, just as Ian does, proves that point.
You seem to be thinking I was addressing the point that Meth wouldn't be low enough to make threats. You clarified it (which I acknowledged), and I added "thank you for proving my point" which is what you seem to disagree with in the first place: how Ian doesn't compare to Meth.
"There's a difference between not tiptoeing around eggs and stomping on them, deliberately trying to smash as many as you can."
Obviously there is. However, I don't think I'm stomping on as many as I can. I'm more like walking across the room and getting straight to the point, and saying exactly what I think. If I were trying to break as many as I can, I'd make up some things just to tick Ian off more.
Var Medici-Giovanni
Proud Father, Proud Husband
Date: 24 Jan 2000 05:58:47 EST
">Go join a war and run into an enemy. Say, "Please don't hurt me or take me
>prisoner." They probably wouldn't kill you immediately, but they might
>torture you for a bit.
Help me out here Var. What in the hell does this have to do with the subject? My analogy compared the military situations to the need to protect Ian's property. When you slay a wolf in the cold woods, and step on a beetle on your kitchen floor, it may not exactly be the same consequences should you not take action, but the basic premise is there: Destroy the unwanted animal who could do unwanted
things, whether it be getting in your food, or making you it's food."
It means I think your comparison was a poor one. If you ask an enemy for mercy, you're in trouble. If Ian asked Val not to do it, then Val would have probably agreed not to do it. There is a major difference which would influence the outcome of the situation.
">This situation could have been resolved if Ian said, "Val, please don't touch
>the skyboxes."
You obviously didn't catch this within my last couple of posts, so, I'll make it unmistakeable: I AGREED IAN ACTED RASHLY!
Now do you understand my stance there?"
You seem to be the one misunderstanding. I did not say you agreed with him, I am just saying how childishly he acted. I added that in because you still seem to not understand me comparing him to Methous.
"Your point? You contradict yourself Baron.
Earlier you stated that at least Methous does not insult people for calling him stupid."
No, it's apparent we are focusing on the different points I was trying to make. I was stating how Ian's actions were comparitive to Meth's, and you asked why. You stating that Meth makes threats, just as Ian does, proves that point.
You seem to be thinking I was addressing the point that Meth wouldn't be low enough to make threats. You clarified it (which I acknowledged), and I added "thank you for proving my point" which is what you seem to disagree with in the first place: how Ian doesn't compare to Meth.
"There's a difference between not tiptoeing around eggs and stomping on them, deliberately trying to smash as many as you can."
Obviously there is. However, I don't think I'm stomping on as many as I can. I'm more like walking across the room and getting straight to the point, and saying exactly what I think. If I were trying to break as many as I can, I'd make up some things just to tick Ian off more.
Var Medici-Giovanni
Proud Father, Proud Husband
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: ianmackenzie@aol.com (Ian MacKenzie)
Date: 24 Jan 2000 10:16:28 EST
Lord Var:
For the umpteenth time, nothing was "broken." Get hold of yourself, you're sounding more insensible than you're making me out to be.
"I don't think Meth would be childish enough to make threats because someone says and/or thinks he's an idiot."
Only you would miss the obvious implication here, Var. I'm not threatening you in the least. I'm warning you that if you insist on making yourself look like a moron by comparing me -disassembling- my property and placing it back within my own bit of real estate with Methous -destroying- an item which wasn't his, then the risk of being looked at as a fool is all your own.
Petty little outburst. Let's talk about the pettiness of not having the common courtesy to contact the owner of an item before suggesting to the PUBLIC that they go messing with it. Let's talk about proposing what in any place other than Rhydin Town would be a criminal offense. Let's talk about people whose morals are so miniscule that they'd rather vilify someone for protecting their rightful interest than say a single word against the person who
prompted the action to begin with.
Regards,
Ian Rex.
Date: 24 Jan 2000 10:16:28 EST
Lord Var:
For the umpteenth time, nothing was "broken." Get hold of yourself, you're sounding more insensible than you're making me out to be.
"I don't think Meth would be childish enough to make threats because someone says and/or thinks he's an idiot."
Only you would miss the obvious implication here, Var. I'm not threatening you in the least. I'm warning you that if you insist on making yourself look like a moron by comparing me -disassembling- my property and placing it back within my own bit of real estate with Methous -destroying- an item which wasn't his, then the risk of being looked at as a fool is all your own.
Petty little outburst. Let's talk about the pettiness of not having the common courtesy to contact the owner of an item before suggesting to the PUBLIC that they go messing with it. Let's talk about proposing what in any place other than Rhydin Town would be a criminal offense. Let's talk about people whose morals are so miniscule that they'd rather vilify someone for protecting their rightful interest than say a single word against the person who
prompted the action to begin with.
Regards,
Ian Rex.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: ianmackenzie@aol.com (Ian MacKenzie)
Date: 24 Jan 2000 10:23:47 EST
Lord Var:
"This situation could have been resolved if Ian said, 'Val, please don't touch the skyboxes.' "
This situation could have been avoided had Lord Valentine had the common courtesy to ask, or had the common sense not to attempt expound on how my property was his to do with as he saw fit. A common courtesy that everyone should expect from the caretaker of this establishment. Even you, Var.
If you need that explained in simpler terms, I'll be happy to attempt it. Until you pull your head out of the sand and grasp that nothing was "broken" or "destroyed," and that the only "threat" made was informing you that you're risking looking like a fool (again).
As for not liking me, I'm sure you know precisely how little I care.
Regards,
Ian Rex.
Date: 24 Jan 2000 10:23:47 EST
Lord Var:
"This situation could have been resolved if Ian said, 'Val, please don't touch the skyboxes.' "
This situation could have been avoided had Lord Valentine had the common courtesy to ask, or had the common sense not to attempt expound on how my property was his to do with as he saw fit. A common courtesy that everyone should expect from the caretaker of this establishment. Even you, Var.
If you need that explained in simpler terms, I'll be happy to attempt it. Until you pull your head out of the sand and grasp that nothing was "broken" or "destroyed," and that the only "threat" made was informing you that you're risking looking like a fool (again).
As for not liking me, I'm sure you know precisely how little I care.
Regards,
Ian Rex.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: novagreys@aol.com (Nova GreyS)
Date: 24 Jan 2000 11:37:04 EST
"Val,
Welcome to Duel of Swords Management. Let me know if the list of gripes gets too heavy to carry around. I've got a used wheelbarrow for sale. Needs a wheel, though.
Nova Grey Shadow"
The note on the board read, complete with a big red arrow pointing to the stack of papers concerning the renovations.
"Can almost hear the trees screaming," Nova said to himself as he walked off ... though he couldn't help but chuckle at Ian's skill at beating people back with words.
Date: 24 Jan 2000 11:37:04 EST
"Val,
Welcome to Duel of Swords Management. Let me know if the list of gripes gets too heavy to carry around. I've got a used wheelbarrow for sale. Needs a wheel, though.
Nova Grey Shadow"
The note on the board read, complete with a big red arrow pointing to the stack of papers concerning the renovations.
"Can almost hear the trees screaming," Nova said to himself as he walked off ... though he couldn't help but chuckle at Ian's skill at beating people back with words.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: shivblade@aol.com (SHIV BLADE)
Date: 24 Jan 2000 14:10:29 EST
Community,
First, my thanks to Ian for answering my question.
Now, for my thoughts. Yes, I agree with some of Drake's words. I feel that Ian may have acted rashly in his actions, yet from what I can see, it was within his rights to do so. Those truly were his sky boxes, and thus it was his right to come and take them down. Now, what has happened? We have yet another argument going upon the boards. Well, let me state this. If we could take but one ounce of the power it is taking to berate each other, and set it
to figuring out where to go from here, then we could have built a new building by now. Let us not forget what started this argument. It was a simple suggestion to renovate. Regardless of what has happened now, no one has answered that question. I personally would like to see what we can make of this situation. It seems that we have the workers, as many have volunteered.
As far as to the new boss around this place. Let us not forget, he is two years my senior. Also where his heart was leading in this discussion. For all intense purposes, you guys wish to chastise the kid for wanting to help. When there is a change in leadership, there will be some things to work out. That is why I felt the decision was a bit rash. For how easy would it have been to tell the man, that the skyboxes were actually not property of the
arena. Yes, it might have been just as easy for him to find out, but really why would someone? Because, I have made the same mistake myself. I have assumed they were property of the arena. I have sent out countless measures to my barons to fix them up. Yet, in doing so, I had the same line of thought as the boss. To help this place out. It seems everyone one of you that wishes to find fault with this place will. You will see this situation and find
only that the young man has committed some horrid crime. Yet, he, and I for that matter were only trying to help make this place better.
Avery Shiv Blade
Overlord
Date: 24 Jan 2000 14:10:29 EST
Community,
First, my thanks to Ian for answering my question.
Now, for my thoughts. Yes, I agree with some of Drake's words. I feel that Ian may have acted rashly in his actions, yet from what I can see, it was within his rights to do so. Those truly were his sky boxes, and thus it was his right to come and take them down. Now, what has happened? We have yet another argument going upon the boards. Well, let me state this. If we could take but one ounce of the power it is taking to berate each other, and set it
to figuring out where to go from here, then we could have built a new building by now. Let us not forget what started this argument. It was a simple suggestion to renovate. Regardless of what has happened now, no one has answered that question. I personally would like to see what we can make of this situation. It seems that we have the workers, as many have volunteered.
As far as to the new boss around this place. Let us not forget, he is two years my senior. Also where his heart was leading in this discussion. For all intense purposes, you guys wish to chastise the kid for wanting to help. When there is a change in leadership, there will be some things to work out. That is why I felt the decision was a bit rash. For how easy would it have been to tell the man, that the skyboxes were actually not property of the
arena. Yes, it might have been just as easy for him to find out, but really why would someone? Because, I have made the same mistake myself. I have assumed they were property of the arena. I have sent out countless measures to my barons to fix them up. Yet, in doing so, I had the same line of thought as the boss. To help this place out. It seems everyone one of you that wishes to find fault with this place will. You will see this situation and find
only that the young man has committed some horrid crime. Yet, he, and I for that matter were only trying to help make this place better.
Avery Shiv Blade
Overlord
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: ianmackenzie@aol.com (Ian MacKenzie)
Date: 24 Jan 2000 14:32:40 EST
Overlord:
You state, "For all intense purposes, you guys wish to chastise the kid for wanting to help." This is inaccurate. In fact, I applaud his original intention. However...
You later wonder, "For how easy would it have been to tell the man, that the skyboxes were actually not property of the arena." The point I have attempted to drill home here, and apparently am failing to, is that he -was- told... and expressed an attitude that he simply didn't care.
Let me make this perfectly clear one final time. I had no objection to the idea of renovating. I have no objection to Lord Valentine's desire to spruce the place up. I was not even really offended that he didn't seek me out before making public his -desire- to do so. I can understand that perhaps he was, AT THAT TIME, unaware that he didn't own them.
What I -was- offended by was, when someone mentioned to him that he -should- contact me, and that he -didn't- own the structure, that he took the attitude that he shouldn't have to, and that they were -his- simply because they were constructed within the arena. While ignorance is usually no excuse, in this case, I could easily have forgiven Lord Evermeadow his misunderstanding - until he made it plain that he simply didn't care.
And that is the crux of the matter. People may say what they wish, but I remain convinced that my actions were not only within my rights, but entirely appropriate given the conditions. An attempt was made on my behalf to attempt to create a discussion; that attempt was brushed off.
Regards,
Ian Rex.
Date: 24 Jan 2000 14:32:40 EST
Overlord:
You state, "For all intense purposes, you guys wish to chastise the kid for wanting to help." This is inaccurate. In fact, I applaud his original intention. However...
You later wonder, "For how easy would it have been to tell the man, that the skyboxes were actually not property of the arena." The point I have attempted to drill home here, and apparently am failing to, is that he -was- told... and expressed an attitude that he simply didn't care.
Let me make this perfectly clear one final time. I had no objection to the idea of renovating. I have no objection to Lord Valentine's desire to spruce the place up. I was not even really offended that he didn't seek me out before making public his -desire- to do so. I can understand that perhaps he was, AT THAT TIME, unaware that he didn't own them.
What I -was- offended by was, when someone mentioned to him that he -should- contact me, and that he -didn't- own the structure, that he took the attitude that he shouldn't have to, and that they were -his- simply because they were constructed within the arena. While ignorance is usually no excuse, in this case, I could easily have forgiven Lord Evermeadow his misunderstanding - until he made it plain that he simply didn't care.
And that is the crux of the matter. People may say what they wish, but I remain convinced that my actions were not only within my rights, but entirely appropriate given the conditions. An attempt was made on my behalf to attempt to create a discussion; that attempt was brushed off.
Regards,
Ian Rex.