Non-Naive

[Lurker]

So I've got to stick with there being enough to justify the kidnapping.

All I can say is your moral judgements and your tendency to support extreme measures based on circumstance and hearsay are frightening.

Not to mention your attempts to justify yourself by twisting words.

Could you please drop the vagueness, the personal assessments and the lack of direct comments for what's been said for two minutes to actually speak in a straightforward manner? That or let me know if you don't plan to?

I'm already feeling like this has been a waste of time. I'd rather know if this is done or if there's something else I'm supposed to be waiting on.

[Luminous]

All I can say is your moral judgements and your tendency to support extreme measures based on circumstance and hearsay are frightening.

Not to mention your attempts to justify yourself by twisting words.

Could you please drop the vagueness, the personal assessments and the lack of direct comments for what's been said for two minutes to actually speak in a straightforward manner? That or let me know if you don't plan to?

I'm already feeling like this has been a waste of time. I'd rather know if this is done or if there's something else I'm supposed to be waiting on.

So what part of that was vague to you?

[Lurker]

The "attempts to justify yourself by twisting words" part.

By the way, you're giving me no reason to be polite here, so please be aware that it's taking something of an effort to remain that way.

[Luminous]

The "attempts to justify yourself by twisting words" part.

By the way, you're giving me no reason to be polite here, so please be aware that it's taking something of an effort to remain that way.

This may be vague to you, but doubt it's vague to anyone who has been subject to your critical analysis.

[Lurker]

The "attempts to justify yourself by twisting words" part.

By the way, you're giving me no reason to be polite here, so please be aware that it's taking something of an effort to remain that way.

This may be vague to you, but doubt it's vague to anyone who has been subject to your critical analysis.

Whatever, Luminous. I'm not sure what your gripe is, but I'm not going to engage in a flame war with you.

[Haether]

This may be vague to you, but doubt it's vague to anyone who has been subject to your critical analysis.

condescending much?

if you can't really explain what you mean, or give an example, then you should really retract your snarky little comment.

Weakly criticizing another's form, rather than argument, only serves to point out the weaknesses in your own form. For example, the straw man argument you presented above; comparing the LG15 kidnapping to the kidnapping of Steven Staynor. These two situations are obviously disparate. Presenting analogies like these make me think you are simply arguing for the sake of the argument.

[Luminous]

The "attempts to justify yourself by twisting words" part.

By the way, you're giving me no reason to be polite here, so please be aware that it's taking something of an effort to remain that way.

This may be vague to you, but doubt it's vague to anyone who has been subject to your critical analysis.

Whatever, Luminous. I'm not sure what your gripe is, but I'm not going to engage in a flame war with you.

On this I agree. We really have gotten far off topic, and I will return to biting my tounge and scrolling past your lengthy posts, as I generally do.

[Luminous]

This may be vague to you, but doubt it's vague to anyone who has been subject to your critical analysis.

condescending much?

if you can't really explain what you mean, or give an example, then you should really retract your snarky little comment.

Yes, snarky and condescending, and I apologize to you for that. I could get into a lengthy debate, and lay out all the cases, and all the conclusions to be drawn, but I really don't think anyone wants to see that, and frankly, I don't have the time or interest. I was trying to make a simple point that is being overlooked. I really have no desire to get into a contest of wits with Lurker, or anyone else. I come here for fun, and frankly, this kind of exchange simply ruins it for me. It's why I don't post very much in certain forums any more.

[longlostposter]

Luminous, I normally agree with you, but on this pont, I cannot.

Let's take a closer look at the situation. How traumatized was Jules? I don't think so much. Why? Several reasons:

1) She was not harmed or sexually abused.
2) She kept fighting, which shows she was not afraid of DBJ.
3) It was obvious that DBJ were more concerned than hostile. This is evidenced by the fact that, even as she fought, Daniel offered her a glass of water. Furthermore, she threw the water in Daniel's face, which proves further evidence of point two...that she was not afraid.

Trauma is based on fear. Jules was not afraid, that much is obvious. No fear, no trauma. She was inconvenienced at most, IMO. However, her parents may have been traumatized.

[Luminous]

Luminous, I normally agree with you, but on this pont, I cannot.

Let's take a closer look at the situation. How traumatized was Jules? I don't think so much. Why? Several reasons:

1) She was not harmed or sexually abused.
2) She kept fighting, which shows she was not afraid of DBJ.
3) It was obvious that DBJ were more concerned than hostile. This is evidenced by the fact that, even as she fought, Daniel offered her a glass of water. Furthermore, she threw the water in Daniel's face, which proves further evidence of point two...that she was not afraid.

Trauma is based on fear. Jules was not afraid, that much is obvious. No fear, no trauma. She was inconvenienced at most, IMO. However, her parents may have been traumatized.

Point 1) Just because someone has not been physically harmed does not mean they have not been traumatized.
Point 2 & 3) Fear triggers a release of adrenaline that causes a "fight or flight" response. The fact that Jules did both - fight and flight, only reinforces the arguement she was VERY afraid. Were she not afraid, she would have reasoned with her captors. She would not have been kicking, screaming and behaving like a cornered animal.

[longlostposter]

Luminous, I just read your post in the other thread about Aquarians. I am an Aquarian, and I surely hope you didn't mean to call Aquarians stupid. Could you please clarify, because that comment pissed me off. Furthermore, your posts to Lurker have been insulting and pompous. While I have considered myself a friend to both you and Lurker, I am seriously reconsidering that opinion as far as you go.

Also, you are a dumbass for insinuating that 1/12 of the people on this forum are not capable of an intelligent post. Congratulations.

[Aithne]

I've just said it all in the complaints-thread, but let me just repeat one thing here: We have yet to see the Order hurt any ceremony girl.

Bree didn't die. Bree wasn't hurt. Bree wasn't fake-killed in the fake ceremony. Bree doesn't know what happens at the actual ceremony.

There is no proof whats-o-ever that Jules would be hurt, and, although I agree it is likely, storywise, as everything else would be boring, a vague chance is no justification for BD&J to just kidnap people.


As far as Jules is concerned, the Order never hurt her, while the people opposing the Order attacked on the open street and kidnapped her a few days later.

Kidnapping is worse than what the Order does to her, because, so far, the Order did nothing to her. And there is no proof, neither in-game nor out of game, that she had been hurt by the Order had BD&J not hurt her first.

As I said, I posted most of it in the complaints thread...I'd only repeat myself here.

There is no absolute evidence that Michal Jackson hurts children either, but if my kids were going over there (or anyone's kids that I loved), I sure as hell would take extreme measures to get them the hell away from him (or anywhere he was going to be). Legalities be damned!

[Luminous]

Luminous, I just read your post in the other thread about Aquarians. I am an Aquarian, and I surely hope you didn't mean to call Aquarians stupid.

I already answered this on the other thread, but I will answer it here as well. I am an Aquarian myself, so I would be included if this were my intention, which it was not. Where I was going with it, is that Aquarians are ruled by the intention "I know". Which can make us look like we think we know it all. (because we do, right?) This is my take on Lurker, which is why I asked him. Thought we might be able to do a little "Aquarian" bonding . Unfortunately, that was not the case. And yes, I think you and I are both know-it-alls .

Also, you are a dumbass for insinuating that 1/12 of the people on this forum are not capable of an intelligent post. Congratulations.

Not quite sure how you gathered this assumption. It was definitely not my intention to insinuate that. I actually find the forum members quite intelligent and quite enjoyable, which is largely why I spend so much time here.

[longlostposter]

You know what, Luminous, you have changed in the way you deal with others, and most of that is your tone and superior attitude. Yes, you are right about us. Nuff said.

[Lurker]

Where I was going with it, is that Aquarians are ruled by the intention "I know". Which can make us look like we think we know it all. (because we do, right?) This is my take on Lurker, which is why I asked him.

I don't think I know everything, Luminous (I'm usually careful to emphasize that things are my own opinion when I say them; I might slip up from time to time on that, but I know I usually do it out of plain habit if not conscious decision), but I do have opinions on most things, and I'm not afraid to share.

By the way, in case you're still curious, I'm a Leo.