Re: Hate Thread
Your ignorence = my bad english
Ok, mate.
I admit my english is horrific but seriously, youre going to stoop THAT low to force an argument that you dident miss a point? jeez... whos on the high horse again?
Now thats something im obliged to agree with.
I'm not stooping low, no lower than just claiming that anyone arguing is being a dick, which is what you have and continue to do, even before it got aggressive.
"either of you" -your words.
"either" = two. Two people. How many responded to Paladox? Quite a few, but those who had directly responded to him before you popped up were me and Slicer... two. If you said "any of you" or "both sides" or something more accurate to what you meant (better English), then you might have gotten your point across. Then tried to argue logic against law after I explicitly said it was the law, and you tried to argue that it was unclear when it's THE LAW.
But if we want to talk about rules that are clear, how bout we take a look at 3 of the 4 rules of moderation, the first rules listed on the rule page of this forum
A: The Laws of Moderation
1) The moderators are always right.
2) If the moderators are not right, rule 1 applies.
and
4) When a moderator steps in to say something about a topic (in an official capacity obviously) you are not to help. Thats why they are moderators and you are not. This is because we can end an argument faster if only two people are talking instead of 23.
Which means, probably don't pull the high horse shit when you get off it to trudge through the mud anyway, cuz when you jump back on the high horse whenever you want, your boots are still caked in shit and everyone can smell it.
