Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Nevine" data-source="post: 2561009" data-attributes="member: 34504">Well, since you're done, I'll just make a final rebuttal.From what I gather, you seem to have this absolutist view that the new chat will keep people from leaving and that iChat is the main reason people flee in "droves" from ISRP.  Yes, threads were made about the chats being down, some were <a href="http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=52829" target="_blank">humorous</a>, some were not.  You may notice that I don't have a link for "not", that's because the archives for the old boards are gone.  If there were any threads where people seriously complained and threatened to leave because of iChat (and if they actually did or not) we can't be sure.  All we have to go on is your memory, Darrius, and how it best serves you.  Most of your points are based on "as I recall".You <a href="http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=45953&page=2&pp=30" target="_blank">need</a> <a href="http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=85507" target="_blank">only</a> <a href="http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=175688" target="_blank">go</a> <a href="http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=166700" target="_blank">through</a> <a href="http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=160055" target="_blank">the</a> <a href="http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=250533" target="_blank">current</a> <a href="http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=194108" target="_blank">archives</a> to find examples of ISRPer's true sources of discontent.  None of which have to do with iChat.  There was even a <a href="http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=71306" target="_blank">chat</a> <a href="http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=76373" target="_blank">seminar</a> on the current state of roleplaying, iChat was not a point of concern.There was nothing <a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=veiled" target="_blank">veiled</a>, about the pot calling the kettle black.  You have heard the phrase before, yes?  If not, it means you were being hypocritical and I am sorry you did not understand.  I directly addressed you though, there was nothing snide or anything that left you wondering who I was posting to.  Perhaps it was my delivery, I apologize for being humorous.As for the "suck" comment, there isn't anything there either.  I have clearly stated my displeasures about the software, I am allowed to generalize after properly elaborating on my views.  Now, you may have had something if all I had said was "this sucks" or indirectly addressed Mel (or anyone else) through such a statement.  I have been quite direct.Whereas here, you have made a broad and general statement about any number of people with the intent to offend.  This is also known as..If you had posted that to me or anyone else specifically, it would be known as...It could also be...If you had been more direct with such statements.  So, you calling people whiners is like me saying anyone who agrees with Mel is brown nosing.  Which I'm not.  I can conduct myself properly, in regards to statements made about others, during debate and discourse.I hope that clears up how I, and likely anyone else who commented on the statement, saw it.I can't find "conceitious" in the dictionary, but I must assume by the "not demanding" part, you mean concede.  So, to have your respect, people must concede to you and your opinions (or that of authority just because they are authority).  No thanks.Now..I would write another humorous letter to you from Mr. Pot, but I don't want to be accused of veiled insults.  Therefore, I propose that you, perchance, might want to take your own advice.No, I don't feel bad for expressing my opinion or displeasure.Edit:  I can no spell..hurr..hurr..</blockquote>

Verification