From: morganfay@aol.com (MorganFay)
Date: 19 Dec 1998 17:59:20 EST
Var,
"You have the right to wield a blade, Morgan, but you can misuse your right and cut the wrong person;maybe yourself."
A very poor attempt at analogy. If I cut the wrong person, I have not misused my right to wield a blade, I have simply misused the handling of my blade. A right is not something that can be touched, it cannot be measured except by other intangible means.
Skill can be measured by definition. We choose to measure one's skill with a blade by how many wins over losses the duelist can maintain, for instance.
It is not my right to be skilled or unskilled with a weapon, only my right to try or not to try to attain some measure of skill. If I fail to use my blade properly, I have not abused my right to wield the blade, but simply misjudged my ability or my environment.
Lupton,
"The two are opposites in purpose. How can someone begin to call them the same?"
†What is a person called who is an advocate for a person or cause?
What is a person called who is a defender for a person or cause?
Who does battle for another's rights or honor?
Answer: A champion.
What does a person do to challenge or defy another person or cause?
What does a person do when they support, protect, or fight for a person or cause?
What does a person do when they act as militant supporter of a person or cause?
Answer: The person champions. end †
I am sure there are many synonyms for the noun or verb champion, it does not change the action or intent.
If Magnus advocates a challenger's right to directly fight who he challenged, he is championing, or fighting for, the challenger.
If Magnus offers support to those that rise against the Overlord, he is championing their cause.
If Magnus objects to a person using a champion or being a champion, and he takes up arms to defend another *against* a champion, he becomes a champion, himself, and is a hypocrite. It does not matter if he champions the direct opposite of what another champions, if he does not like champions, he should not BE a champion.
A sidethought, if Magnus were to be victorious in his quest to be Overlord, if he champions someone, or uses a champion to test those challenging himself, the hyocrisy is that much more evident.
Coron,
"is it the same though if it's Magnus steppin' in as a renegade during a test by Dalamar, and for him to attempt to get the challenger and the challenged to duel personally, Morgan?"
Yes, it is the same. If he defends or fights for a person or cause, he is championing.
Walker,
"I believe that Magnus did not intend the term "champion" to apply to his action, but merely as a synonym for intercessor."
Same thing applies, we shall simply place another behavior in champion's place. If Magnus does not like those who intercede, then he should refrain from doing the same.
If he finds dishonor in what Dalamar does, then why does he do the same as Dalamar and, more importantly, why does he not see the same dishonor in himself?
† ((Author's note: taken from Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary © 1986 by Merriam-Webster Inc.))
Challenge
-
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: rixfavre@aol.com (Rix Favre)
Date: 19 Dec 1998 18:24:10 EST
>What I said was the equivalent of, 'Stop trying to twist people's words in
>your mind to say what you want them to say to do the most damage. Try reading
>what they are really saying.'
Thank you for the clarification. You say that was not meant to be an insult and I will take your word for it.
However, instead of simply clarifying yourself to prove me wrong, you feel the need to tell me that I "seem to enjoy trying to make people's words meant what ( I ) want them to." I am insulted by this thought of yours. Especiually since it has no merit to it at all.
-Rix
Date: 19 Dec 1998 18:24:10 EST
>What I said was the equivalent of, 'Stop trying to twist people's words in
>your mind to say what you want them to say to do the most damage. Try reading
>what they are really saying.'
Thank you for the clarification. You say that was not meant to be an insult and I will take your word for it.
However, instead of simply clarifying yourself to prove me wrong, you feel the need to tell me that I "seem to enjoy trying to make people's words meant what ( I ) want them to." I am insulted by this thought of yours. Especiually since it has no merit to it at all.
-Rix
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: joaknshld@aol.com (J Oaknshld)
Date: 19 Dec 1998 18:55:56 EST
<<Still, I don't believe I mentioned politics in my post, and you reply talking only about politics. I'd like to know where exactly you got my apparent wish to lessen the impact of politics in the sport.>>
Walker, I didn't write my second post addressed ta ya, but rather ta Percival and others who are tryin' ta downplay Dalamar's political tactics (which is why I separated my comment ta ya from my other post)
As ta my other post, its purpose was ta explain ToWs aren't always held because da Overlord himself necessarily desires 'em. True it is his right ta *permit* da ToW, but sometimes its da Baron dat wants it ta happen. And part of Dalamar keepin' his loyal barons is fer him ta appease him. If I say ta Dal "I don't want Magnus ta be OL, let me test him please", Dal might respond "Well I was gonna face him alone, but I will allow ya ta step in."
In such a case its not a Test of Worthiness, but rather my desire not ta have ta be baron under Magnus. People too often scream at da Overlord who is only allowin' a ToW ta appease his loyal barons. Dalamar's skills may in fact surpass any of his loyals, as such he would strategically be wiser ta just fight himself in a best of 3, but more goes on dan calculations of his best chance ta win.
~J
Date: 19 Dec 1998 18:55:56 EST
<<Still, I don't believe I mentioned politics in my post, and you reply talking only about politics. I'd like to know where exactly you got my apparent wish to lessen the impact of politics in the sport.>>
Walker, I didn't write my second post addressed ta ya, but rather ta Percival and others who are tryin' ta downplay Dalamar's political tactics (which is why I separated my comment ta ya from my other post)
As ta my other post, its purpose was ta explain ToWs aren't always held because da Overlord himself necessarily desires 'em. True it is his right ta *permit* da ToW, but sometimes its da Baron dat wants it ta happen. And part of Dalamar keepin' his loyal barons is fer him ta appease him. If I say ta Dal "I don't want Magnus ta be OL, let me test him please", Dal might respond "Well I was gonna face him alone, but I will allow ya ta step in."
In such a case its not a Test of Worthiness, but rather my desire not ta have ta be baron under Magnus. People too often scream at da Overlord who is only allowin' a ToW ta appease his loyal barons. Dalamar's skills may in fact surpass any of his loyals, as such he would strategically be wiser ta just fight himself in a best of 3, but more goes on dan calculations of his best chance ta win.
~J
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: foxxgrrl@aol.com (Foxxgrrl)
Date: 19 Dec 1998 19:23:10 EST
> However, instead of simply clarifying yourself to prove me wrong, you feel the need to tell me that I "seem to enjoy trying to make people's words meant what ( I ) want them to." I am insulted by this thought of yours. Especiually since it has no merit to it at all. >
Rix..
Let me draw your attention to the phrase Percy used. "You seem to enjoy trying to make people's words mean what you want them to."
The emphasis is mine, but it's entirely warranted. Percy made an observation, correct or incorrect, and clearly identified it as a thought by using "seem". You were insulted, which is fine and good, but he did not out-and-out insult you.
A question: Person X can be insulted by Person Y without Person Y planning to insult them. Who gets blamed for that?
~Ally
Date: 19 Dec 1998 19:23:10 EST
> However, instead of simply clarifying yourself to prove me wrong, you feel the need to tell me that I "seem to enjoy trying to make people's words meant what ( I ) want them to." I am insulted by this thought of yours. Especiually since it has no merit to it at all. >
Rix..
Let me draw your attention to the phrase Percy used. "You seem to enjoy trying to make people's words mean what you want them to."
The emphasis is mine, but it's entirely warranted. Percy made an observation, correct or incorrect, and clearly identified it as a thought by using "seem". You were insulted, which is fine and good, but he did not out-and-out insult you.
A question: Person X can be insulted by Person Y without Person Y planning to insult them. Who gets blamed for that?
~Ally
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: waikrboh@aol.com (WaIkrBoh)
Date: 19 Dec 1998 19:59:45 EST
Morgan, you write:
"[I write:]"I believe that Magnus did not intend the term "champion" to apply to his action, but merely as a synonym for intercessor."
Same thing applies, we shall simply place another behavior in champion's place. If Magnus does not like those who intercede, then he should refrain from doing the same.
If he finds dishonor in what Dalamar does, then why does he do the same as Dalamar and, more importantly, why does he not see the same dishonor in himself?"
Once again, Magnus is saying that the intercession is wrong by opposing its use. Magnus may be opposed to any Overlord ever using the test of worthiness in some cases. However, that does not mean that he is opposed to the concept. His words of "I do not like intercessors or chamions" may have referred specifically to the intercessor in a challenge. He may feel that duelers should fight their own fights, not have others do it for them.
Therefore, when the OL uses the ToW, he feels it is appropriate to level the playing field in any way possible. The one allowed for in the rules sounds a good deal like the Overlord's use, but in fact, as Lupton has said, has opposite aims. Instead of trying to get someone's fight fought by someone else, he is trying to make the challenged defend his/herself.
Technically, Magnus is not allowing the challenger to fight their own fight in the intersession, but this case is the case of the lesser of two evils. He obviously feels it is better to be slightly hypocritical than not at all, while allowing an injustice (the one by which he would be perceived as hypocritical anyways) to go through.
Whether he agrees with me on what he feels, I am uncertain. However, I am trying to at least give you (and the community) the basis behind a person's actions you call hypocritical that I believe are not so.
-Walker Boh
Baron of the 12th
Date: 19 Dec 1998 19:59:45 EST
Morgan, you write:
"[I write:]"I believe that Magnus did not intend the term "champion" to apply to his action, but merely as a synonym for intercessor."
Same thing applies, we shall simply place another behavior in champion's place. If Magnus does not like those who intercede, then he should refrain from doing the same.
If he finds dishonor in what Dalamar does, then why does he do the same as Dalamar and, more importantly, why does he not see the same dishonor in himself?"
Once again, Magnus is saying that the intercession is wrong by opposing its use. Magnus may be opposed to any Overlord ever using the test of worthiness in some cases. However, that does not mean that he is opposed to the concept. His words of "I do not like intercessors or chamions" may have referred specifically to the intercessor in a challenge. He may feel that duelers should fight their own fights, not have others do it for them.
Therefore, when the OL uses the ToW, he feels it is appropriate to level the playing field in any way possible. The one allowed for in the rules sounds a good deal like the Overlord's use, but in fact, as Lupton has said, has opposite aims. Instead of trying to get someone's fight fought by someone else, he is trying to make the challenged defend his/herself.
Technically, Magnus is not allowing the challenger to fight their own fight in the intersession, but this case is the case of the lesser of two evils. He obviously feels it is better to be slightly hypocritical than not at all, while allowing an injustice (the one by which he would be perceived as hypocritical anyways) to go through.
Whether he agrees with me on what he feels, I am uncertain. However, I am trying to at least give you (and the community) the basis behind a person's actions you call hypocritical that I believe are not so.
-Walker Boh
Baron of the 12th
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: morganfay@aol.com (MorganFay)
Date: 19 Dec 1998 20:16:32 EST
"I don't think you understand the concept of rights, Morgan. Just because someone has 'the right' to do something, that doesn't make doing it 'right' or correct. Rights and priveleges are very easily abused and misused."
I believe it is you who does not understand the concept of rights. Rights are inalienable and therefore cannot be abused or misused by the person who has them. If you deny me my rights, then there is abuse.
The Test of Worthiness is an unalienable right of the Overlord to use against those who challenge for his title. He does not need to give reason and he does not need approval to do so. There is no right way or wrong way to employ his right. If there were conditions, be assured it would be clearly outlined in the rules.
" However, when you choose to use your 'right' of free speech to insult someone, you are making a wrong action. This falls under abuse of your 'rights.'"
Incorrect. The right to free speech is not conditional upon someone else's approval of what is said. My right to speak freely is not subject to a charge of abuse and misuse. Defamation, libel, slander are not protected by the inalienable right to free speech; insults, parody, satire, prejudice, and hate are protected. Why is that? Here's a scenario to help explain.
I find that there is a bold knight with an army of 100 at my gates. I ask him what is his purpose. He replies, "You are not fit to hold these lands. Open your gates and submit to me, become my wife, or I will kill all your knights and burn your castle to the ground."
I take great insult and say, "You are despicable and I will never be wife to a monster such as you!" The knight takes great insult.
Who had more of a right to speak candidly? The knight with his army making the insulting charge of my fitness? Or me, who found his behavior deplorable and refused to submit?
What if someone reads insult where insult was not intended? Must we assume the person who interprets insult to have a more valid right to cry out of injustice?
"You see, with rights come responsibilities. Dal's right to Test his challengers comes with the responsibility to use that right wisely. In the past, certain Overlords have badly abused their 'right' to Test their challengers."
Where is the definitive answer to what is wise? Why is your definition of what is just or unjust to be used by the rest of us? Must we uphold your definition of honor and what is right or responsible? Who are you to say how one holding title must contain themselves? What makes your opinions more relevant than another's? Must we also assume that anyone who rebels against your attempts at defining terms for us is merely engaging in insulting
behavior?
I do not care what you think is just, or honorable, or appropriate. Many times, I find your attitude to be contemptible and rude. Feel insulted, it will not change my opinion nor will I change my style to suit you, neither will I fall silent.
"If you have a problems understanding this, or the logic involved in the responsible and irresponsible use of rights, I have a radical suggestion for you. Try thinking a little more and reading a little more closely, and stop super-imposing what you think on what you read. You will find it much easier to read intelligently with an open mind."
With these words, you have come closer to becoming that which you disdain. You could not have given me a greater gift if you had consciously tried. I hope there will be more, I promise to cherish them as much as I cherish this first.
Earnestly,
Morgan
Date: 19 Dec 1998 20:16:32 EST
"I don't think you understand the concept of rights, Morgan. Just because someone has 'the right' to do something, that doesn't make doing it 'right' or correct. Rights and priveleges are very easily abused and misused."
I believe it is you who does not understand the concept of rights. Rights are inalienable and therefore cannot be abused or misused by the person who has them. If you deny me my rights, then there is abuse.
The Test of Worthiness is an unalienable right of the Overlord to use against those who challenge for his title. He does not need to give reason and he does not need approval to do so. There is no right way or wrong way to employ his right. If there were conditions, be assured it would be clearly outlined in the rules.
" However, when you choose to use your 'right' of free speech to insult someone, you are making a wrong action. This falls under abuse of your 'rights.'"
Incorrect. The right to free speech is not conditional upon someone else's approval of what is said. My right to speak freely is not subject to a charge of abuse and misuse. Defamation, libel, slander are not protected by the inalienable right to free speech; insults, parody, satire, prejudice, and hate are protected. Why is that? Here's a scenario to help explain.
I find that there is a bold knight with an army of 100 at my gates. I ask him what is his purpose. He replies, "You are not fit to hold these lands. Open your gates and submit to me, become my wife, or I will kill all your knights and burn your castle to the ground."
I take great insult and say, "You are despicable and I will never be wife to a monster such as you!" The knight takes great insult.
Who had more of a right to speak candidly? The knight with his army making the insulting charge of my fitness? Or me, who found his behavior deplorable and refused to submit?
What if someone reads insult where insult was not intended? Must we assume the person who interprets insult to have a more valid right to cry out of injustice?
"You see, with rights come responsibilities. Dal's right to Test his challengers comes with the responsibility to use that right wisely. In the past, certain Overlords have badly abused their 'right' to Test their challengers."
Where is the definitive answer to what is wise? Why is your definition of what is just or unjust to be used by the rest of us? Must we uphold your definition of honor and what is right or responsible? Who are you to say how one holding title must contain themselves? What makes your opinions more relevant than another's? Must we also assume that anyone who rebels against your attempts at defining terms for us is merely engaging in insulting
behavior?
I do not care what you think is just, or honorable, or appropriate. Many times, I find your attitude to be contemptible and rude. Feel insulted, it will not change my opinion nor will I change my style to suit you, neither will I fall silent.
"If you have a problems understanding this, or the logic involved in the responsible and irresponsible use of rights, I have a radical suggestion for you. Try thinking a little more and reading a little more closely, and stop super-imposing what you think on what you read. You will find it much easier to read intelligently with an open mind."
With these words, you have come closer to becoming that which you disdain. You could not have given me a greater gift if you had consciously tried. I hope there will be more, I promise to cherish them as much as I cherish this first.
Earnestly,
Morgan
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: morganfay@aol.com (MorganFay)
Date: 19 Dec 1998 20:26:03 EST
Slightly hypocritical? Is that like almost pregnant?
Rationalizing motivations does not justify becoming a hypocrite.
Date: 19 Dec 1998 20:26:03 EST
Slightly hypocritical? Is that like almost pregnant?
Rationalizing motivations does not justify becoming a hypocrite.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: rolandsal@aol.com (Roland Sal)
Date: 19 Dec 1998 22:32:16 EST
<Dalamar has strong friends, and he's got plenty of skill, and its obviously a good formula fer success.>
Allies, skill, and the title of Supreme Dueler. Why should he care what you think is best for him, when his way seems to be working damn well.
Roland Sal Roa
New Mountainside / House Salsinger
Date: 19 Dec 1998 22:32:16 EST
<Dalamar has strong friends, and he's got plenty of skill, and its obviously a good formula fer success.>
Allies, skill, and the title of Supreme Dueler. Why should he care what you think is best for him, when his way seems to be working damn well.
Roland Sal Roa
New Mountainside / House Salsinger
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: rolandsal@aol.com (Roland Sal)
Date: 19 Dec 1998 22:47:58 EST
I tell you, from what little experience I gathered in the past few months as Baron, then Walord of quite a few wins:
When you are high on life and in the Baron's seat, the faults of politics and insults on the board are both annoying and considered unneeded.
But as a regular ranked dueler again; I enjoy the boards alot more than before. You have the politics, you have the challenges, you have no real responsibility, other than a good sportsman like nature while in the dueling ring. Like I said before, I'm not saying the Barons Council should get into a slug fest, I'm just saying let it happen as it will. You wouldn't believe how many "Why can't we all just get along" posts I have read just this
night, needless to say, it is way more than I would have expected.
I'm sure some Baron's feel this way, namely the ones who have held their ring for a good while, or have been a Baron for a long period of time before hand and had a taste of that gap between Baron, Warlord, Baron.
I suppose what I'm trying to say is; the insults and politics will come and go, as will your skill with a blade and political allies... but what will always remain is your true friends, and the dueling hall.
I think Dalamar has figured out who his real friends are and I hope he isn't too dissappointed in who remains.
Good luck with your defense, Dalamar.
Roland Sal Roa
New Mountainside / House Salsinger
Date: 19 Dec 1998 22:47:58 EST
I tell you, from what little experience I gathered in the past few months as Baron, then Walord of quite a few wins:
When you are high on life and in the Baron's seat, the faults of politics and insults on the board are both annoying and considered unneeded.
But as a regular ranked dueler again; I enjoy the boards alot more than before. You have the politics, you have the challenges, you have no real responsibility, other than a good sportsman like nature while in the dueling ring. Like I said before, I'm not saying the Barons Council should get into a slug fest, I'm just saying let it happen as it will. You wouldn't believe how many "Why can't we all just get along" posts I have read just this
night, needless to say, it is way more than I would have expected.
I'm sure some Baron's feel this way, namely the ones who have held their ring for a good while, or have been a Baron for a long period of time before hand and had a taste of that gap between Baron, Warlord, Baron.
I suppose what I'm trying to say is; the insults and politics will come and go, as will your skill with a blade and political allies... but what will always remain is your true friends, and the dueling hall.
I think Dalamar has figured out who his real friends are and I hope he isn't too dissappointed in who remains.
Good luck with your defense, Dalamar.
Roland Sal Roa
New Mountainside / House Salsinger
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: rixfavre@aol.com (Rix Favre)
Date: 19 Dec 1998 23:09:29 EST
Got me, Ally.
I should have just added that it was unnecessary for Percy to post what I had a problem with in the first place. That is my whole point, after all. If it may be insulting to someone, either reword or omit the statement.
I probably should have said that in the first place. My mistake.
And no one gets the blame. I do not believe that blame is applicable to miscommunication.
-Rix
Date: 19 Dec 1998 23:09:29 EST
Got me, Ally.
I should have just added that it was unnecessary for Percy to post what I had a problem with in the first place. That is my whole point, after all. If it may be insulting to someone, either reword or omit the statement.
I probably should have said that in the first place. My mistake.
And no one gets the blame. I do not believe that blame is applicable to miscommunication.
-Rix
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: leducblanc@aol.com (LeDucBlanc)
Date: 19 Dec 1998 23:50:43 EST
>>I suppose what I'm trying to say is; the insults and politics will come and go, as will your skill with a blade and political allies... but what will always remain is your true friends, and the dueling hall.<<
Roland,
You and I have had our difference, but I will agree with the entire passage I have quoted completely. This is the truth, and will likely always be one of the few complete truths of this place.
Well said.
Percy
Date: 19 Dec 1998 23:50:43 EST
>>I suppose what I'm trying to say is; the insults and politics will come and go, as will your skill with a blade and political allies... but what will always remain is your true friends, and the dueling hall.<<
Roland,
You and I have had our difference, but I will agree with the entire passage I have quoted completely. This is the truth, and will likely always be one of the few complete truths of this place.
Well said.
Percy
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: waikrboh@aol.com (WaIkrBoh)
Date: 20 Dec 1998 01:01:26 EST
>Slightly hypocritical? Is that like almost pregnant?
I think I used the wrong term here. I meant something along the lines of walking a fine line when holding to your own beliefs, that when paired with beliefs that others have (but you don't) come out hypocritically. You either have to forget about trying due anything, or possibly look hypocritical for the purpose of defending another belief. It is this "possibly hypociritical" or "hypocritical when other fairly common beliefs I don't share are
added in" that I mean.
There are possibilities that someone is actually slightly hypocritical, although I agree that this is certainly not of those possibilities.
>Rationalizing motivations does not justify becoming a hypocrite.
>
But if he isn't a hypocrite in the first place, how does all off a sudden rationalizing behavior make him one? I merely provided sample rationalization that would go along with a case he could make for not being hypocritical.
Magnus appears to feel two different things:
1) It is wrong for the Overlord to issue the ToW.
This he has said many times.
2) It is right for me to oppose the Overlord's use of the ToW.
True due to the fact that he does oppose the ToW. (If he were to not really believe this for some reason, he obviously would be a hypocrite)
If one were to contradict the other, than he would indeed be a hyopcrite. For instance, if the 1st belief was "It is wrong for anybody to step in on any challenge". However, if these are indeed Magnus' beliefs, I find nothing to fault him for. What you seem to fault him for is the belief I described two sentences ago. He may have said something that made him appear to feel how you claim, but it seems clear to me that he meant what I listed as (1)
above.
Of course, Magnus still could be a hypocrite, since he has yet to say anything defending himself or even agreeing with what I have put forth. I admit that Magnus might be a hypocrite, I'd just like acknowledgement the possibilty exists that Magnus is not a hypocrite, or proof that he does indeed believe that all "championings" (non-technical) are not right.
-Walker Boh
Baron of the 12th
Date: 20 Dec 1998 01:01:26 EST
>Slightly hypocritical? Is that like almost pregnant?
I think I used the wrong term here. I meant something along the lines of walking a fine line when holding to your own beliefs, that when paired with beliefs that others have (but you don't) come out hypocritically. You either have to forget about trying due anything, or possibly look hypocritical for the purpose of defending another belief. It is this "possibly hypociritical" or "hypocritical when other fairly common beliefs I don't share are
added in" that I mean.
There are possibilities that someone is actually slightly hypocritical, although I agree that this is certainly not of those possibilities.
>Rationalizing motivations does not justify becoming a hypocrite.
>
But if he isn't a hypocrite in the first place, how does all off a sudden rationalizing behavior make him one? I merely provided sample rationalization that would go along with a case he could make for not being hypocritical.
Magnus appears to feel two different things:
1) It is wrong for the Overlord to issue the ToW.
This he has said many times.
2) It is right for me to oppose the Overlord's use of the ToW.
True due to the fact that he does oppose the ToW. (If he were to not really believe this for some reason, he obviously would be a hypocrite)
If one were to contradict the other, than he would indeed be a hyopcrite. For instance, if the 1st belief was "It is wrong for anybody to step in on any challenge". However, if these are indeed Magnus' beliefs, I find nothing to fault him for. What you seem to fault him for is the belief I described two sentences ago. He may have said something that made him appear to feel how you claim, but it seems clear to me that he meant what I listed as (1)
above.
Of course, Magnus still could be a hypocrite, since he has yet to say anything defending himself or even agreeing with what I have put forth. I admit that Magnus might be a hypocrite, I'd just like acknowledgement the possibilty exists that Magnus is not a hypocrite, or proof that he does indeed believe that all "championings" (non-technical) are not right.
-Walker Boh
Baron of the 12th
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: leducblanc@aol.com (LeDucBlanc)
Date: 20 Dec 1998 01:30:07 EST
>> I admit that Magnus might be a hypocrite, I'd just like acknowledgement the possibilty exists that Magnus is not a hypocrite, or proof that he does indeed believe that all "championings" (non-technical) are not right.<<
Oh, Magnus might not be a hypocrite. That is certain. He might be a lot of things. He might be a zealot, he might be a radical, he might be an idealist. He might be a hardline fanatic when it comes to his beliefs. I don't think it reasonable to call him a hypocrite. He has demonstrated that he will put his beliefs on the line.
It is one thing for people to disagree with his beliefs. It is fine for them to say he is wrong, to argue with him, to oppose him in the ring when he fights for his beliefs. These are all responsible methods of expressing disagreement.
It is wrong for people to call him a hypocrite. It is silly for people to state an illogical hypothesis and then attempt to twist logic to serve its purpose.
Magnus might be right. He might be wrong. He might be extreme. He might be misguided. He might be admirable. He might be dangerous. He might make a good Overlord, and he might make a bad one. But he is probably not a hypocrite. Of course, the only real way to find out is for all of us to shut up and wait and see what happens.
But we won't do that, will we?
Duc Percival Marchand de Clermont
Date: 20 Dec 1998 01:30:07 EST
>> I admit that Magnus might be a hypocrite, I'd just like acknowledgement the possibilty exists that Magnus is not a hypocrite, or proof that he does indeed believe that all "championings" (non-technical) are not right.<<
Oh, Magnus might not be a hypocrite. That is certain. He might be a lot of things. He might be a zealot, he might be a radical, he might be an idealist. He might be a hardline fanatic when it comes to his beliefs. I don't think it reasonable to call him a hypocrite. He has demonstrated that he will put his beliefs on the line.
It is one thing for people to disagree with his beliefs. It is fine for them to say he is wrong, to argue with him, to oppose him in the ring when he fights for his beliefs. These are all responsible methods of expressing disagreement.
It is wrong for people to call him a hypocrite. It is silly for people to state an illogical hypothesis and then attempt to twist logic to serve its purpose.
Magnus might be right. He might be wrong. He might be extreme. He might be misguided. He might be admirable. He might be dangerous. He might make a good Overlord, and he might make a bad one. But he is probably not a hypocrite. Of course, the only real way to find out is for all of us to shut up and wait and see what happens.
But we won't do that, will we?
Duc Percival Marchand de Clermont
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: xxlucianxx@aol.com (XxLucianxX)
Date: 20 Dec 1998 05:27:10 EST
::grumbles, approaching the boards, seeing a huge stack os missives awaiting his perusal.. chuckles a bit, rolls his eyes a bit.. then fight off a bit of uproarious laughter and writes ::
Xerzes,
::shakes his head, chuckling a moment.. keeps writing::
Oy.Stop.Cease.Desist.Refrain.Quit it.Few to no one actually finds anything of intelligence in your posts. Thank you for giving me the finest phrase that I could have ever desired to describe you. You have great insight, which I admire.
As to hypocritical doings : If I believe it is wrong to use poison tipped blades, and I assault the maker of these poisons because he spreads the wrong doing (ie, I dislike challenges so I fight against them in a certain means), I know that my cause can only be successful if I too poison my blade and strike my opponent first. (I know the only way I can stop champions fighting challengers is by stepping in and becoming a champion myself.) Am I
hypocritical? Of course. Do I care? No, I am doing what must be done to make sure *my* way of life is triumphant over *his*. Sure, maybe I'll fell guilty, maybe not. The fact is, it is hypocritical. The feeling is, who cares? Admit it, move on, or don't. it doesn't matter.
As to "Rights" : At birth, I was granted the *right* to breath. I do so at every given opportunity as it is quite key in my survival and maintenance of my current station in life. I do not find that to be an abuse of the right itself. If I were, although I would never claim to be, Dalamar, and I were to exercise the right I have earned to challenge every single knife weilding twit who challenged me, to ensure my survival and maintenance of station
in life, I would find it laughable to consider that "abuse" and not "common sense". Make of it what you will. What do I know?
-- Lucian
Date: 20 Dec 1998 05:27:10 EST
::grumbles, approaching the boards, seeing a huge stack os missives awaiting his perusal.. chuckles a bit, rolls his eyes a bit.. then fight off a bit of uproarious laughter and writes ::
Xerzes,
::shakes his head, chuckling a moment.. keeps writing::
Oy.Stop.Cease.Desist.Refrain.Quit it.Few to no one actually finds anything of intelligence in your posts. Thank you for giving me the finest phrase that I could have ever desired to describe you. You have great insight, which I admire.
As to hypocritical doings : If I believe it is wrong to use poison tipped blades, and I assault the maker of these poisons because he spreads the wrong doing (ie, I dislike challenges so I fight against them in a certain means), I know that my cause can only be successful if I too poison my blade and strike my opponent first. (I know the only way I can stop champions fighting challengers is by stepping in and becoming a champion myself.) Am I
hypocritical? Of course. Do I care? No, I am doing what must be done to make sure *my* way of life is triumphant over *his*. Sure, maybe I'll fell guilty, maybe not. The fact is, it is hypocritical. The feeling is, who cares? Admit it, move on, or don't. it doesn't matter.
As to "Rights" : At birth, I was granted the *right* to breath. I do so at every given opportunity as it is quite key in my survival and maintenance of my current station in life. I do not find that to be an abuse of the right itself. If I were, although I would never claim to be, Dalamar, and I were to exercise the right I have earned to challenge every single knife weilding twit who challenged me, to ensure my survival and maintenance of station
in life, I would find it laughable to consider that "abuse" and not "common sense". Make of it what you will. What do I know?
-- Lucian
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: jonalyn@aol.com (Jonalyn)
Date: 20 Dec 1998 06:39:58 EST
Master Zen Rising
Though I shall hae to hae me scribes research the matter thoroughly, tis I seem to recall that the matter wast indeed posted officially, immediately following the match, upon this very corkboard which, at the time served to officially apprise the community of the outcome of a challenge. On a side note, the defense made by then Overlord Martigan Crow against the Warlord Tukros wasna placed upon this ancient cork though there yet remains in my magical
lock box a true copy of the events of that particular evening.
Jonalyn Nenshen Starfare.
Date: 20 Dec 1998 06:39:58 EST
Master Zen Rising
Though I shall hae to hae me scribes research the matter thoroughly, tis I seem to recall that the matter wast indeed posted officially, immediately following the match, upon this very corkboard which, at the time served to officially apprise the community of the outcome of a challenge. On a side note, the defense made by then Overlord Martigan Crow against the Warlord Tukros wasna placed upon this ancient cork though there yet remains in my magical
lock box a true copy of the events of that particular evening.
Jonalyn Nenshen Starfare.