Book 3 - Page 262

Royalty Loyalty

Book 3 - Page 262
Comic - Book 3 - Page 262
Recent posts... (See full thread)
Tonot wrote:
Simple. The people who use terms like "shitty" and "lazy" to describe the appearance of female characters. And the people who deny this is sexism, really, and provide spurious bullshit reasoning's why. And the people who defend their right to do it. And the people who pretend, from some faux moral high ground that both these things are in the name of free speech?
Sexists and their enablers.


Thanks for not trying to fight the meaning of the "Anatomy of a Permanent Ban" thread, especially since it was so clear and obvious.

As for the rest, the fact that you would dismiss people with genuine freedom of speech and expression interests as "people who pretend" and "enablers" speaks far more eloquently of the bankruptcy and insecurity inherent in such extreme viewpoints, than anything else I could say.
I've always hated the idea of "original sin" and the modern version is just as obnoxious.
Chiu ChunLing wrote:
We also know that there are less exotic ways to beat Shockmancy, one of which was demonstrated to the Tool not especially long after the thing with missing Jillian.
It's too late for any ordinary trick to be behind Jillian beating the Shockmancy. Stanley was wondering about it, so Rob must know that the audience is wondering about it, and yet he's given no clear answer in all this time. If it's just a simple trick, then what's the point of saving it for a big reveal for so long?

The big question is when is Rob planning to reveal the answer? If the answer is arkenhammer attuning, then that will reveal itself when Jillian gets the 'hammer, so the delayed reveal makes perfect sense. Otherwise, if the answer is Charlie's magic, then maybe we'll get the reveal as part of the climax of the conflict between Parson and Charlie. Jillian is probably going to be involved in that climax and we'll find out why Charlie thinks he needs her, and that might include something that goes all the way back to explaining the 'hammer miss.

If we take the 'hammer miss as evidence that Jillian could attune to the 'hammer, then maybe Charlie knows that Jillian could attune to the 'hammer and that's what he wants from her. It wouldn't be the only time Charlie has made a play for an attuned person.
Ansan Gotti wrote:


Thanks for not trying to fight the meaning of the "Anatomy of a Permanent Ban" thread, especially since it was so clear and obvious.

No need to thank me, as you said when you posted before, "You obviously either did not read or did not understand the plain meaning of the "Anatomy of a Permanent Ban" thread
'. I didn't read it because I had not seen it. I note that your saying now "fight the meaning" means you understand perfectly well that thread, and my contention that the person was banned for sexism are not mutually exclusive though. However, seriously? this was just you playing semantics, as was your passive aggressive thanking me.

Ansan Gotti wrote:
As for the rest, the fact that you would dismiss people with genuine freedom of speech and expression interests as "people who pretend" and "enablers" speaks far more eloquently of the bankruptcy and insecurity inherent in such extreme viewpoints, than anything else I could say.


Sure, just as your writing this strawman misrepresentation of what I actually said, does the same for you.
Tonot, do everyone here a favor and take your crusading elsewhere. Whatever your reasoning, motivations, etc etc, you're making the forums a worse place with your posting right now. What you think about someone who calls any character in a work of fiction shitty, lazy, ugly, whatever, isn't relevant here. If you want to discuss reasons why a given character isn't what they're accused of being, fine, but personally attacking people who express those opinions isn't what the reaction threads (or any of Erfworld's forums, for that matter) exist for.
Tonot wrote:
this was just you playing semantics, as was your passive aggressive thanking me.


My thanks earlier were completely genuine, as I was actually very glad not to have to fight you about it. And thanks as well for acknowledging that you hadn't read the other thread, that was unclear to me previously.

Quote:
Ansan Gotti wrote:
As for the rest, the fact that you would dismiss people with genuine freedom of speech and expression interests as "people who pretend" and "enablers" speaks far more eloquently of the bankruptcy and insecurity inherent in such extreme viewpoints, than anything else I could say.


Sure, just as your writing this strawman misrepresentation of what I actually said, does the same for you.


Given that I quoted your own exact words, as well as the larger quote further above, I have no idea what you mean about a straw man. I believe I'm conveying your precise position.

But you're more than welcome to clarify, and if I've inadvertently misconstrued you, I'd be happy to own that.
Here's the thing, the original post about which Tonot has been complaining for the last several pages did not single out anyone on the basis of apparent sexual identity. Yes, it was clear in context that the post referenced Marie as a recent example of the Signamancy discussed, but it made no specification or suggestion that the interpretation applied only to females.

So this is an entirely manufactured complaint, unless Tonot is declaring that anyone that speaks disparagingly of any characteristic that it is possible for a woman to have is sexism against women (and yes, that's only ONE of several kinds of sexism). And then arguing that this absolute evil must be eradicated at all costs...including blatant disrespect for the rights of Rob to establish the standards of behavior expected of people using his forums to wage their moral crusades.

Oh, sure, the expressed desire to stamp out the concept of freedom of speech is a BIGGER issue, but it's not a real threat here. I kinda want to stamp out all life in the universe (or at least feel grave discomfort at the thought that my existence might be perverted to the end of preventing the extinction of all life), but who is going to freak out about that particular threat? Now, if I started leveling personal threats against specific people on the forum, that'd be different. And so it is with Tonot's expressed contempt for the ideal of free and open discourse in society at large compared to the blatant disregard for Rob's ownership of this forum.

In other words, go ahead and take your crusade elsewhere and see how far that gets you, Tonot. But don't bring it here because Rob doesn't maintain this forum as a place for people to personally insult each other.
Squaring this with Stanly's going to be interesting.
FrankHarr wrote:
Squaring this with Stanly's going to be interesting.

Who would have to? I mean, if things go the way they seem to be headed, neither Marie nor Wanda will be on his side any more to be held accountable. That leaves...Parson? Some leftover decrypted? None of them ordered Marie to shoot a friendly warlord, and I'm pretty sure parson is going to have words with her the next time they see one another about it, regardless.

Granted, it's almost assured that Stanley's going to be pissed, but there will be very few units (as in, none) left on his side that can reasonably be blamed for this turn of events. Given his recent character developments, I suspect he'll be understanding enough of that fact not to completely lose it on his remaining leadership.
I'm thinking that Marie just doesn't mention it.

Stanley knows when units get croaked, and he can sense the engagement, but does he automagically know it was fratricide rather than friendly fire (if he even knows that much)? Did Slately get a bunch of notices when Tram was having the archers try to kill everything in the atrium about which particular units shot arrows that killed Jetstone units, or did he just get "X croaked by arrow during engagement with GK"?

Stanley might never know more than that Georgia got hit by a bullet while in contact with Faq's top leadership stack. And I don't see Marie volunteering more information, especially after turning (Jillian might tell, unless Wanda would rather she not).