Where did the original order folks go?

[ShardinsKitten]

Firstly, it really wasn't a dig at lurker, and if he took that way I'm sorry. It was the simple fact that IF Hippie was in fact talking about "the order" that has been there all along he wouldn't of made this post because it is STILL there. The only members that are "missing" are oppy, tachyon, brother, and the other people that responded from the OpAphid profile.

Lucy has been there all along, all I said was that I wasn't sure if the creators still wanted us to see Lucy as a helper, and the others as watchers or not. Because I couldn't remember at the time if those were names given before OpA or during OpA, or where they came from. He answered me, I don't have a problem with that either.

By nearly invisible I meant that we have no interactions with them, we rarely see them in a video, they rarely make videos of their own. Yes we hear about them, yes we know they are there, but we don't really ever SEE them or get to interact with them.

And I still disagree, we knew they were big before OpA but they became MUCH bigger during OpA. Again I think this is because OpA made videos, corresponded with us, ect ect. So it was more there, active, about, then what we have now.

Even the hymn of one is pretty much nothing. We heard about it a few times the website came up and then we get nothing.

If Hippie was talking about the order we heard about all along, then I'm confused why they even made this post to begin with because they are still there, just like they were at the start. So I was answering Hippie's question from how I took it, if that's wrong then I'll apologize to Hippie, for answering his question wrong. But like I said how does it make sense to ask a question about where people are when they are still there?

[Languorous Lass]

Firstly, it really wasn't a dig at lurker, and if he took that way I'm sorry.

How can you say that a statement like "Well lurker, while I see your need to always think you're right and correct everyone. . ." is not a dig at Lurker?

And my response to your statement had nothing to do with how he took the statement -- in fact, I didn't even see his response until after I posted mine. I found the statement offensive, all by my lonesome.

Accusing someone of having a "need to always think [they]'re right and correct everyone" is, in fact, a dig -- no matter how you try to [mis]characterize what you said.

Again, if you truly believe that Lurker has a "need to always think [he's] right and correct everyone," then have the guts to go down to his thread and tell him so, instead of engaging in little side jabs like the one I've been quoting from your post on the previous page.

And if you don't truly believe that, then I think you owe him an apology. In fact, I think you owe him an apology in either case.

ETA: I see now that you have gone down to Lurker's thread to voice your opinion. I still think your previous statement was a dig, but I appreciate your stepping up and speaking out in the thread where it's appropriate.

[ApotheosisAZ]

Lurker is a fine person who doesn't need me sticking up for him, but I will anyway. He doesn't lord his knowledge over everyone, and on the rare occasion when he is wrong, he is the first to admit it.

This last video does have Lucy in it.

The Watcher, while out of focus for the most part, looks like the one who showed up at Jonas' house.

[ShardinsKitten]

Firstly, it really wasn't a dig at lurker, and if he took that way I'm sorry.

How can you say that a statement like "Well lurker, while I see your need to always think you're right and correct everyone. . ." is not a dig at Lurker?

And my response to your statement had nothing to do with how he took the statement -- in fact, I didn't even see his response until after I posted mine. I found the statement offensive, all by my lonesome.

Accusing someone of having a "need to always think [they]'re right and correct everyone" is, in fact, a dig -- no matter how you try to [mis]characterize what you said.

Again, if you truly believe that Lurker has a "need to always think [he's] right and correct everyone," then have the guts to go down to his thread and tell him so, instead of engaging in little side jabs like the one I've been quoting from your post on the previous page.

And if you don't truly believe that, then I think you owe him an apology. In fact, I think you owe him an apology in either case.

ETA: I see now that you have gone down to Lurker's thread to voice your opinion. I still think your previous statement was a dig, but I appreciate your stepping up and speaking out in the thread where it's appropriate.

This isn't the appropriate thread to keep going on about this. So chill, while it's none of your business to start with you are more then welcome to PM me about, but I will just tell you that it doesn't involve you, unless you really give me a good reason why it does.

Lurker is more then welcome to PM too, if he feels the need to talk about it with me.

So can we please get this back topic?

[Languorous Lass]

while it's none of your business to start with you are more then welcome to PM me about, but I will just tell you that it doesn't involve you, unless you really give me a good reason why it does.

Not to belabor the topic, but since you asked: it's my business because I speak out against unfairness and nastiness wherever I see it.

IMHO, if everyone followed the same policy, we'd have a much better world.

[Kasdeja]

Good lord...why do I come back? Lurker is absolutely correct in his information, for what it's worth.

[LesterG]

watches our friendly neighborhood law person in admirance