Pat Condell is a hero

Pages

AuthorTopic: Pat Condell is a hero
BANNED
Member # 10430
Profile #25
quote:
Originally written by Higher Game:

So is it ok or not to hate against haters? :confused:
My point exactly.

Edit: Well, not 'exactly', but at least you're thinking outside the square.

[ Friday, March 14, 2008 17:22: Message edited by: Lepus timidus ]

--------------------
"I am Barzhal, and I am here to ask you a question:
Is a man not entitled to the products of his own essence?

No, says the servile in Medab. It belongs to the oppressed.
No, says the Shaper in Terrestia. It belongs to the Shaper Council.
No, says the Trakovite in hiding. It belongs to no-one.

I rejected those answers. Instead, I chose something
different. I chose the impossible. I chose… Ascension."
Posts: 136 | Registered: Wednesday, September 12 2007 07:00
BANNED
Member # 10430
Profile #26
quote:
Originally written by Thuryl:

quote:
Originally written by Lepus timidus:

Shame on you all white people. How dare you bend over backwards for some foreign religion imported by our mortal enemies in the Middle-East who used to continously rip your ancestors a new one, in favour of the polytheistic religions full of kickass semi-nude muscular gods which are native to Western people.
You can't be real.

You're the one who favours the importation of a religion which promotes violence, discrimination, and a policy of not assimilating with the natives.

Are you for real?

[ Friday, March 14, 2008 17:36: Message edited by: Lepus timidus ]

--------------------
"I am Barzhal, and I am here to ask you a question:
Is a man not entitled to the products of his own essence?

No, says the servile in Medab. It belongs to the oppressed.
No, says the Shaper in Terrestia. It belongs to the Shaper Council.
No, says the Trakovite in hiding. It belongs to no-one.

I rejected those answers. Instead, I chose something
different. I chose the impossible. I chose… Ascension."
Posts: 136 | Registered: Wednesday, September 12 2007 07:00
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #27
quote:
Originally written by Lepus timidus:

You're the one who favours the importation of a religion which promotes violence, discrimination, and a policy of not assimilating with the natives.
I am? When did I say that?

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
BANNED
Member # 10430
Profile #28
So you don't want Western nations to take in Muslims? It's nice to know that we are in complete agreement, then. Why on earth are we even arguing?

--------------------
"I am Barzhal, and I am here to ask you a question:
Is a man not entitled to the products of his own essence?

No, says the servile in Medab. It belongs to the oppressed.
No, says the Shaper in Terrestia. It belongs to the Shaper Council.
No, says the Trakovite in hiding. It belongs to no-one.

I rejected those answers. Instead, I chose something
different. I chose the impossible. I chose… Ascension."
Posts: 136 | Registered: Wednesday, September 12 2007 07:00
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #29
quote:
Originally written by Lepus timidus:

So you don't want Western nations to take in Muslims? It's nice to know that we are in complete agreement, then. Why on earth are we even arguing?
My opinion on Muslims is irrelevant; I just don't like you.

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Law Bringer
Member # 4153
Profile Homepage #30
Did Echo bring you to debate LT so frequently, Thuryl?

IMAGE(http://www.lightandmatter.com/html_books/5op/ch02/figs/narcissus.jpg)

--------------------
Gamble with Gaea, and she eats your dice.
Posts: 4130 | Registered: Friday, March 26 2004 08:00
BANNED
Member # 10430
Profile #31
quote:
Originally written by Thuryl:

quote:
Originally written by Lepus timidus:

So you don't want Western nations to take in Muslims? It's nice to know that we are in complete agreement, then. Why on earth are we even arguing?
My opinion on Muslims is irrelevant; I just don't like you.

Man, such sentiments will keep me awake at night. I'm devastated!

But I am curious... why exactly don't you like me, old boy? You don't even know me.

[ Friday, March 14, 2008 18:02: Message edited by: Lepus timidus ]

--------------------
"I am Barzhal, and I am here to ask you a question:
Is a man not entitled to the products of his own essence?

No, says the servile in Medab. It belongs to the oppressed.
No, says the Shaper in Terrestia. It belongs to the Shaper Council.
No, says the Trakovite in hiding. It belongs to no-one.

I rejected those answers. Instead, I chose something
different. I chose the impossible. I chose… Ascension."
Posts: 136 | Registered: Wednesday, September 12 2007 07:00
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #32
quote:
Originally written by Lepus timidus:

But I am curious... why exactly don't you like me, old boy? You don't even know me.
Stay curious. Maybe you'll learn something.

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Shaper
Member # 7472
Profile Homepage #33
Ooh! I know! Because you're either:

A) A very stupid troll,

or

B) A bigoted, loathsome excuse for a human being!

Either way, I hope you get banned soon, because this is getting downright ridiculous.

I also say that this thread needs to get shut down immediately.

[ Friday, March 14, 2008 18:10: Message edited by: Nioca ]

--------------------
Hz'ii'zt a'iiencf coxnen a'bn'z'p pahuen yzpa'zuhb be'tt'phukh'kn az'ii'ova mxn't bhcizvi'fl?

Nioca's Citadel - A resource for BoA graphics and scripts, as well as my scenarios.
Posts: 2686 | Registered: Friday, September 8 2006 07:00
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
Profile #34
quote:
Originally written by Nioca:

stuff
I think you're missing the point, my dear fellow.

--------------------
Synergy, et al - "I don't get it."

Argon - "I'm at a loss for words..."
Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #35
There are two critical points to be made here, not for LT's sake, because I don't believe in his sincerity, but for anyone who is reading and may be confused by the forcefulness of his assertions, though they lack any truth.

The first is about the religion of Islam. Islam is, like any other religion, open to interpretation. I have to think that the core message of Islam is peace, though; the very name is taken from a root that means "surrender" in Arabic, namely, surrender to the will of God. Islam is about the glory of God, not about the glory of the individual. To that end, struggle is necessary, and the word for "struggle" in Arabic is "jihad." But jihad is much debated in modern Islamic circles.

For sure, though Muslims revere Jesus as a prophet, Islam is not a "turn the other cheek" religion; if someone attacks Islam, the commandment for jihad orders that Muslims defend Islam. But this is known as "lesser" jihad, a less important and less fundamental struggle. The greater jihad is the internal one, the one involving the soul, the one for faith and for the will of God, struggling to submit truly and completely to God.

The issue is complicated, and Wikipedia actually has a pretty good set of articles on the subject (start with jihad and work your way out). But it is pretty clear that Islam is not inherently a violent religion, and there are deeply pacifist interpretations of the religion (as well as, of course, some violent and aggressive ones).

The other issue that needs to be cleared up involves the definition of "hate speech." Hate speech is defamatory speech directed a particular group of people as a whole, without regard to individual variations. Saying "Islam is inherently violent and discriminatory" is hate speech because it is directed at all Muslims, as if they are all this way. Saying "Some Muslims are violent and discriminatory" is not hate speech, because it does not encompass the whole group. (Thuryl's comment, "I just don't like you," while it may not be CoC-compliant for other reasons, is not hate speech, because it is an assessment of one person in all his individuality and is not based on shaky generalizations.)

Criticizing Islam is fine on these boards, as long as you recognize that Muslims are incredibly diverse and have very little universally in common. Blanket statements about them are almost certain to be untrue, and then criticism turns into hate speech.

[ Friday, March 14, 2008 20:19: Message edited by: Kelandon ]

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
BANNED
Member # 10430
Profile #36
quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:


The first is about the religion of Islam. Islam is, like any other religion, open to interpretation. I have to think that the core message of Islam is peace,

I disagree very strongly with the above assertion. Islam is by its very nature a warlike religion. Verses promoting violence against and the persecution of Muslims litter the Koran, Islam being primarily spread throughout Africa and the Middle-East through warfare, and the suffering of religious minorities in Islamic countries under dhimmitude, are all examples which blow the 'it's all interpretation' argument out of the water.

You might say "Yeah, well, Christianity is rather warlike is some aspects, and it promotes smacking around non-Christians, just read the Bible and look at the Inquisition.", and I'd be the first to agree with you, although it's coercive nature and persecution of non-Christians has been toned down in the last few centuries due to the wimpification of the West. You can't say the same for Islam and its followers, especially for those who live under Sharia.

quote:

For sure, though Muslims revere Jesus as a prophet, Islam is not a "turn the other cheek" religion; if someone attacks Islam, the commandment for jihad orders that Muslims defend Islam.

You act as though Mohammed's statement in the Koran regarding Jihad is the only example of violence against non-Muslims. But since we're on the subject of Jihad, from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad

quote:

In Muslim tradition, the world is divided into two houses: the House of Islamic Peace (Dar al-Salam), in which Muslim governments rule and Muslim law prevails, and the House of War (Dar al-Harb), the rest of the world, still inhabited and, more important, ruled by infidels. The presumption is that by natural law these domains will compete and fighting is inevitable therefore the duty of jihad will continue, interrupted only by truces, until all the world either adopts the Muslim faith or submits to Muslim rule. Those who fight in the jihad qualify for rewards in both worlds—booty in this one, paradise in the next. For most of the recorded history of Islam, from the lifetime of the Prophet Muhammad onward, the word jihad was used in a primarily military sense. [25]

Note that if you read the above article, it becomes clear that (lesser) Jihad is meant in a military sense. While it is true that you have some Muslims who quibble about what Jihad is more important, whether it was to be established for purely defense mechanisms, bla bla bla, it remains that up until recently, Islamic states have consistently used it to justify acts of aggression against non-Muslims, and dhimmis in their own countries. Why on Earth it has taken these minority of Muslims over a millenium to reinterpret scripture into a message of peace of 'live and let live, no matter their beliefs' is beyond me.

quote:

But this is known as "lesser" jihad, a less important and less fundamental struggle. The greater jihad is the internal one, the one involving the soul, the one for faith and for the will of God, struggling to submit truly and completely to God.

Yes, Islam revolves around the submission of the individual to a deity, as reflected by Sharia. Compare this to the idealogy of the West, which promotes individualism and unalienable civil rights.

quote:

The other issue that needs to be cleared up involves the definition of "hate speech." Hate speech is defamatory speech directed a particular group of people as a whole, without regard to individual variations. Saying "Islam is inherently violent and discriminatory" is hate speech

So truth isn't a justification? One need only read the Koran and hadiths, and witness an Islamic state under Sharia to realize that Islam is indeed an inherently violent and discriminatory religion. Society is clearly stratified, with male Muslims at the top, female Muslims beneath them, and non-Muslims grovelling at rock bottom.

Pointing out some individual Muslims who are peaceful and egalitarian doesn't cut it, because all that demonstrates is that they have compromised their religion to accept Western values, much as the hard-line Christians/Jews have done over the past few centuries. Ergo. They are cherry-picking their scripture, and ignoring historical context, in order to conform to a culture contrary to Islam.

quote:

because it is directed at all Muslims, as if they are all this way.

Ahh, but I never said that all Muslims were inherently violent and discriminatory. Try again. This time, actually read my posts.

quote:

Saying "Some Muslims are violent and discriminatory" is not hate speech, because it does not encompass the whole group.

So if I were to assert "All inducted KKK members who remain true to KKK beliefs are racist.", you would consider that hate speech?

What about "A significant number of Muslims are violent and discriminatory?"

Or "There is an obvious trend, with Muslims being more likely to be more violent and discriminatory than their non-Muslim counter parts?"

quote:

Criticizing Islam is fine on these boards, as long as you recognize that Muslims are incredibly diverse and have very little universally in common. Blanket statements about them are almost certain to be untrue, and then criticism turns into hate speech.
Ergo. Blanket statements/generalisations which I don't agree with are hate speech.

[ Friday, March 14, 2008 21:20: Message edited by: Lepus timidus ]

--------------------
"I am Barzhal, and I am here to ask you a question:
Is a man not entitled to the products of his own essence?

No, says the servile in Medab. It belongs to the oppressed.
No, says the Shaper in Terrestia. It belongs to the Shaper Council.
No, says the Trakovite in hiding. It belongs to no-one.

I rejected those answers. Instead, I chose something
different. I chose the impossible. I chose… Ascension."
Posts: 136 | Registered: Wednesday, September 12 2007 07:00
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #37
Oh, one thing I forgot. Obviously I won't respond to someone who is not posting in good faith (and his most recent post is so fatuous that it defies rational reply), but LT said something else that might confuse the casual reader. He suggested that the native religions of Europe were superior to Christianity. While there is certainly a soft spot in my heart for the classical Roman state religion, it is worth noting that it contained virtually no moral or ethical precepts at all. In certain ways, it was hardly a religion at all.

Roman morals were, well, morales: they were related to social mores, which were just customs. And these customs endorsed slavery, subjugated women, viewed all non-Romans as inferior, and so on. Isolated groups, such as the Stoics, attempted to reform these morals, but they did not really succeed.

Other ancient religions were not much different from the Roman one in this respect. Thus, if you want to love ancient European paganism, you have to deal with the fact that the ancient cultures that they were a part of were also in certain ways exceedingly intolerant, sexist, and brutal.

[ Friday, March 14, 2008 22:19: Message edited by: Kelandon ]

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
BANNED
Member # 10430
Profile #38
Because when I said "...the polytheistic religions full of kickass semi-nude muscular gods which are native to Western people.", I obviously meant only the Roman polytheistic religion, right? Maybe you need to take a few lessons in literary comprehension, Kel.

While on the subject, one must consider that the Romans' polytheism never compelled them to persecute those not of the faith. Conquered peoples were (in general) still entitled to practice their faith and customs without living with the fear of being forcibly converted, or spat at in the street. You can't say the same for non-Muslims under Sharia. Hell, the women in Roman society probably had it better than women do in current day Islamic states.

quote:

Roman morals were, well, morales: they were related to social mores, which were just customs. And these customs endorsed slavery, subjugated women, viewed all non-Romans as inferior,

Wow, that sounds like a pretty accurate description of customs under an Islamic state with Sharia. Oh well, I guess Islamic states are only living, what, 2000 years behind the times?

[ Friday, March 14, 2008 22:03: Message edited by: Lepus timidus ]

--------------------
"I am Barzhal, and I am here to ask you a question:
Is a man not entitled to the products of his own essence?

No, says the servile in Medab. It belongs to the oppressed.
No, says the Shaper in Terrestia. It belongs to the Shaper Council.
No, says the Trakovite in hiding. It belongs to no-one.

I rejected those answers. Instead, I chose something
different. I chose the impossible. I chose… Ascension."
Posts: 136 | Registered: Wednesday, September 12 2007 07:00
Shock Trooper
Member # 5459
Profile Homepage #39
Remember folks: When Lepus speaks it is the absolute truth. If you disagree with him you are Muslims.

--------------------
Some of these BoA scenarios might be good:
Backwater Calls, Magus of Cattalon, Rats Aplenty, Outpost Valley
Get them here
Visit The Lyceum for all your rating needs.
Posts: 211 | Registered: Sunday, January 30 2005 08:00
BANNED
Member # 10430
Profile #40
Hahahah, good one. Do you have something other than inane comments to contribute to this discussion?

--------------------
"I am Barzhal, and I am here to ask you a question:
Is a man not entitled to the products of his own essence?

No, says the servile in Medab. It belongs to the oppressed.
No, says the Shaper in Terrestia. It belongs to the Shaper Council.
No, says the Trakovite in hiding. It belongs to no-one.

I rejected those answers. Instead, I chose something
different. I chose the impossible. I chose… Ascension."
Posts: 136 | Registered: Wednesday, September 12 2007 07:00
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #41
quote:
Originally written by Lepus timidus:

Because when I said "...the polytheistic religions full of kickass semi-nude muscular gods which are native to Western people.", I obviously meant only the Roman polytheistic religion, right?
quote:
Other ancient religions were not much different from the Roman one in this respect. Thus, if you want to love ancient European paganism, you have to deal with the fact that the ancient cultures that they were a part of were also in certain ways exceedingly intolerant, sexist, and brutal.
Also: Romans did persecute those not of the faith, as did all ancient cultures with state religions. The Romans famously threw Christians to the lions, for example, but they also had an extremely rocky relationship with the Jews of the time and ended up destroying their Temple. There were a variety of other such incidents.

Shari'a is only the foundation of law in Saudi Arabia and Iran at this point, and to some extent in Afghanistan, Libya, and Sudan. Turkey, Indonesia, Bangladesh, and a host of other predominantly Muslim countries will have nothing to do with Shari'a, because Islam is not inherently political. Attempts to make law out of Islam are not inherent to the religion but are the result of human actors attempting to broaden the religion's reach.

It would be much more accurate to say that the laws of Iran and Saudi Arabia are oppressive than to say that "Islam" is.

[ Friday, March 14, 2008 22:21: Message edited by: Kelandon ]

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
BANNED
Member # 10430
Profile #42
quote:

Also: Romans did persecute those not of the faith, as did all ancient cultures with state religions.
False. Until being Christianized, it was common practice for the Romans to allow the peoples in conquered territories to retain their customs and religious beliefs. In fact, the 'state' Roman polytheistic religion went to far as to incorporate some of these foreign Gods into their own religion, especially the Greek Gods.

Religious tolerance is a trait of polytheism. The same cannot be said for monotheism, which refuses to accept Gods other than its own.

quote:

Shari'a is only the foundation of law in Saudi Arabia and Iran at this point, and to some extent in Afghanistan, Libya, and Sudan.

Isn't that nice. Would you like to live under Sharia, Kel? Do you fancy Islamic law? Would you like to be treated as a dhimmi?

quote:

Turkey, Indonesia, Bangladesh, and a host of other predominantly Muslim countries will have nothing to do with Shari'a,

An oversimplification. Political Islam is present in both Bangladesh and Indonesia, and to a lesser degree, Turkey (most likely thanks to Ataturk and Westernisation).

quote:

because Islam is not inherently political.

False. Islam is by its very nature political, you only need to have even a cursory glance at the Surah, Hadith and Koran to realize that Islam is political, especially in regards to the kafir. Separation of church and state is anathema to Islam.

--------------------
"I am Barzhal, and I am here to ask you a question:
Is a man not entitled to the products of his own essence?

No, says the servile in Medab. It belongs to the oppressed.
No, says the Shaper in Terrestia. It belongs to the Shaper Council.
No, says the Trakovite in hiding. It belongs to no-one.

I rejected those answers. Instead, I chose something
different. I chose the impossible. I chose… Ascension."
Posts: 136 | Registered: Wednesday, September 12 2007 07:00
BANNED
Member # 10430
Profile #43
Kel:

quote:
The Romans famously threw Christians to the lions, for example,

Christian persecution under Roman rule is grossly overexaggerated and misrepresented. The conflict was not a religious one, but a political one. Christians were seen as radicals and hence disloyal to Rome, which resulted in them being used as scapegoats when something went wrong with the Roman Empire. Nothing in the Roman religion demanded that they persecute those of other faiths. That's the main point which you can't seem to wrap your head around. It's explicitly stated in Islamic scriptures to persecute those not of your religion. There is no such rule in Roman polytheism (or any polytheism that I am aware of, though I may be wrong).

quote:

but they also had an extremely rocky relationship with the Jews of the time and ended up destroying their Temple.

Could that be because the Jews were revolting against Roman rule? Under Roman law, the Jews were allowed to practice their local laws and customs, yet continued attacks against their occupiers lead to the destruction of the Great Temple by Titus. So once again, this conflict had nothing to do with Roman religious beliefs being intolerance of other religious beliefs, but due to secular political motives.

[ Friday, March 14, 2008 23:08: Message edited by: Lepus timidus ]

--------------------
"I am Barzhal, and I am here to ask you a question:
Is a man not entitled to the products of his own essence?

No, says the servile in Medab. It belongs to the oppressed.
No, says the Shaper in Terrestia. It belongs to the Shaper Council.
No, says the Trakovite in hiding. It belongs to no-one.

I rejected those answers. Instead, I chose something
different. I chose the impossible. I chose… Ascension."
Posts: 136 | Registered: Wednesday, September 12 2007 07:00
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
Profile #44
So, the Youtube goof is ranting about how folks in GB are being too cautious about offending Muslims, right? How is the discussion about Islamic tendencies relevant to this? I imagine it is tough for anyone to capture exactly the tenets of the Koran in a space like this thread, so in effect isn't the "discussion" flawed from the start?

Sorry, please continue, I'm only trying to stay abreast of the conversation. I would hate to get left in the dust.

--------------------
Synergy, et al - "I don't get it."

Argon - "I'm at a loss for words..."
Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
Profile #45
The relationships between politics and spirituality in Christianity and Islam seem to me to be curiously similar and yet opposite.

Christianity's founder was executed by the authorities, which had occupied his nation by force before that. All the Christian scriptures were written by and for members of a small sect anxious to get along, as far as they could, with a larger society that did not share their beliefs. Yet later, and for a good millennium or so, Christianity became an established religion which legitimized governments and was imposed by the state.

Conversely, early Islam had a state of its own from the Hegira on, ruled by its founder. Yet the very attainment of this ideal in Medina has prevented Islam from fully legitimizing any less perfect regime. Moreover, the Medina theocracy was a small city state with a very flat hierarchy, and it has always been problematic to extrapolate its ideal to larger states. As a result Islam has hardly ever in practice held the political power it claims as an ideal, and in a good thousand years of Islamic civilizations, the religion that was theocratic in principle was predominantly tolerant and pragmatic in practice, to a notably higher degree than contemporary Christianity.

Obviously entities as complex as two world religions differ in many other ways, and are not to be equated by a simple swapping of ancient and medieval history. My point is that taking even just this one first step in sophistication, of distinguishing early and developed forms of the religions, makes nonsense of oversimplified caricatures of both.

--------------------
Listen carefully because some of your options may have changed.
Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #46
Romans viewed Christians as disloyal radicals because they didn't worship the state gods. That was a religious conflict.

Romans attempted to coerce the Jews into following the Roman state religion at first and only tolerated them later because they failed.

Roman religion was inclusive, but it was not tolerant. It incorporated gods into the fold, but things that couldn't fit (like Christianity, like Judaism) were persecuted.

Polytheistic native religions of Europe were just as capable of intolerance and hatred as modern religions are.

Political Islam exists in almost every country that has Muslims. But I stand by the statement that Shari'a is not an integral part of law in many modern predominantly Islamic countries. Iran is a separate issue entirely, and a complex one at that. It is the way it is because we made it so. Look up Mohammed Mosaddeq sometime.

Shari'a is medieval, not modern. And even under Shari'a, Islam was much more tolerant than Christianity was. It was much better to be a Jew in Moorish Spain than in Reconquista Spain.

[ Saturday, March 15, 2008 06:47: Message edited by: Kelandon ]

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Law Bringer
Member # 335
Profile Homepage #47
While I know that you're going to accuse me of bending over backwards and so on, you have spouted what to most people would be classified as hate speech. As these are private forums that are intended to support games and not drive away potential customers, this thread ends here.

—Alorael, who suspects further judicial action will be forthcoming. You were, in fact, warned about not posting hate speech, and just because you don't think that's a good rule doesn't mean that it isn't a rule that the mods must enforce.
Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00

Pages