Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Morrus" data-source="post: 3324615" data-attributes="member: 1">He was, I agree.I don't think he was.Again, I don't see that.And yet again... no he wasn't.No - it's that he was responded to, and just wouldn't accept the answers.&nbsp; My first response was, simply, &quot;fair enough - sorry to hear it.&quot;&nbsp; That should have been it; agree to disagree; it's not like I'm who he needs to convince of anything.&nbsp; He decided to continue to argue - so people who disagreed with him argued back. Open minded discussion, and all that.&nbsp; Nobody with policy-chaning power has posted in this thread.&nbsp; Nobody has been elected yet.&nbsp; We're just a bunch of posters at the moment.Or were we not allowed to do anything but agree with him?&nbsp; An odd stance given your next comment: Unless &quot;open minded discussion&quot; in your mind means &quot;Rasyr's point of view&quot;.In addition, he continued to say stuff that just wasn't true, and that needed to be corrected.Eh, this is just getting silly now.The whole beauty of the ENnies is that they ARE transparent.&nbsp; Most things like this, you'd just get a canned coorporate response.&nbsp; Here, we do it publically.&nbsp; You know what people are thinking, planning, etc.&nbsp; And you know when we disagree, too.All redundant anyway, because Denise and I aren't making the policy, we're merely organising things.&nbsp; The judges will make the policy once elected as they have every year.&nbsp; I'm sure potential judges are reading this, and maybe some of them will agree and build a platform based on that.&nbsp; Cool, innit?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Morrus, post: 3324615, member: 1"] He was, I agree. I don't think he was. Again, I don't see that. And yet again... no he wasn't. No - it's that he was responded to, and just wouldn't accept the answers. My first response was, simply, "fair enough - sorry to hear it." That should have been it; agree to disagree; it's not like I'm who he needs to convince of anything. He decided to continue to argue - so people who disagreed with him argued back. Open minded discussion, and all that. Nobody with policy-chaning power has posted in this thread. Nobody has been elected yet. We're just a bunch of posters at the moment. Or were we not allowed to do anything but agree with him? An odd stance given your next comment: Unless "open minded discussion" in your mind means "Rasyr's point of view". In addition, he continued to say stuff that just wasn't true, and that needed to be corrected. Eh, this is just getting silly now. The whole beauty of the ENnies is that they ARE transparent. Most things like this, you'd just get a canned coorporate response. Here, we do it publically. You know what people are thinking, planning, etc. And you know when we disagree, too. All redundant anyway, because Denise and I aren't making the policy, we're merely organising things. The judges will make the policy once elected as they have every year. I'm sure potential judges are reading this, and maybe some of them will agree and build a platform based on that. Cool, innit? [/QUOTE]

Verification