Okay, one thing at a time.
Wepwaet wrote:Mathlord wrote:Now Wepwaet. Let me try and talk this through for you...again. First off, I don't haze my replies, you make things too simple in creating a threshold, hence oversimplification. I mentioned the time of ETL's accusations as I presumed you were doing the usual complaint of "living in the past" even when not applicable, just covering ALL my bases as I now have to in these threads. For your second post where you clarified what you were after, I responded to your claims and explaining what I meant in my initial post. You call it childish when your questions were silly to begin with. You don't ask someone's opinion then ask them if their opinion is worth anything. That's just insulting. But that's okay, you'll just claim I'm childish again, or spewing propaganda about your posting style
Then when you refused to actually read and figure out what I was saying for yourself, I had to say it more plainly which you apparently got thank god.So let's go through this quickly.
It is okay to bring up whatever you want, your perogative. Of course it is an individual's discretion whether they consider it an important issue or not, but that's not really the question here. Is ETL allowed to bring up stuff from 4 years ago?
Sure, just as I'm allowed to respond to ETL's claims in kind. What is a silly claim is to then say what I did is in the past and shouldn't be included while forgetting to do the same with ETL's posts from even further in the past. Got that?
This falls under my idea of hazing...
Okay, so you're definition of hazing is explaining my posts. Nice job there.
Wepwaet wrote:This is you being insulting....
Not insulting, just stating facts. You refuse to actually read my posts and understand what I'm saying apparently if they are longer than two or three lines, instead calling them propaganda or "hazing"

Wepwaet wrote:And this is you actually answering my queston...
Actually it is about the third time I answered that question, but that's not important.
Wepwaet wrote:You take pleasure in pointing out double standards and hypocrisy. Im trying to point out to you that your stance (what you've told me) doesn't fit with the tone you used in your earlier posts. You should realize that by taking something down to its absolute coherent part avoids preconcieved notions and propaganda. (you view my wanting a specific number out of you as oversimplification; I view it as defining the base for which to have a discussion) I don't particularly care about who brought up what about who or when.
Man, sometimes you can't answer something in one or two lines. Oversimplifying a problem does a disservice to all involved as you get nowhere in actually answering the real question. It's like if you asked me the meaning of life and I said 42. That does not help at all. About my stance in previous posts, all I got to say is once again...read them. If that doesn't help, read the five other posts I have explaining it over again.
Wepwaet wrote:Personally, my threshold is that if it happened before my time then its in the past. If john Q public joins alliance x I don't hold him responsable for things alliance x did before he got their, I would hold him responsable for things that happen after he got their though. I think if you took off your jaded glasses for a second you'd be able to see the question isn't about ETL said this or you said that but about having a respectful discussion on a topic with no right answer.
Okay, so by your logic, I shouldn't hold you responsible for acts committed by your alliance prior to your arrival. Fair enough on a basic level and I don't contradict that in my comments; however, if you look deeper at it, it is still an act by you to join said alliance, knowing of their past deeds. Not guilt by association per say, but willingly associating yourself with people with a shady past says something about you and the choices you make. So it's not as clear cut as you make it out to be. This is why you can't oversimplify this question lol.
Wepwaet wrote:And for the record asking a person to give and then defend their reasoning isn't silly, its the basis of higher education...
You didn't ask me to defend my reasoning, you asked me to defend whether I should be able to make a decision on the subject at all. There is a difference.