Talk:Abington First/Newsletter/Issue8

Darka Unwilling to Take Responsibility

Does the foolish, rediculous, arrogant, dumb, unknowing fool that wrote this dare to show himself? I don't think I've ever read any more crap, by Sigrid's flames! - Easy

I am Gauihu, current editor of the Abington First newsletter. If you or one of your comrades wishes to try to come stab me in the middle of the night (as is your wont), you are free to try. If on the other hand, you have something reasonable to say which is relevant, feel free to do do in your "Volcanic Hot" deceptionletter.House Olik 22:12, 27 January 2007 (CET)

Nah I'll just do it here. Firstly, it is not Darka that has to take responsibility, but RedSpan in the first place. On his own or not, he is a RedSpanian and attacked Darka during peace. "Oh yes but that's called mercenary, and doesn't Darka know everything about being mercenary, he was paid to do so." Yes Darka does, but when Darka attacks a realm under contract, then we don't expect that realm to watch and see us attack, but to fight back. It's just the same now: AJ attacked Mr_Jones, and contract or not, Darka fights back.

Secondly, what is that crap about Darka being illegitimate? Hell where do you get that from?

Thirdly, sure RedSpan fined AJ for that, sure, nice boy, but the bounty AJ was collected was 600 and the fine was 500, so AJ still cashed 100, and the other 500 just went to RedSpan. 600 gold pure profit for RedSpan, do you think we are stupid enough to accept that of that bounty 500 is held by the goat ranch instead of by one goat? So Tony refused to pay the 600 gold to Darka, and so Darka takes measures. Point. For every peasant that is killed on Goat soil, Tony is responsible. Tony still has the faith of the goat peasants in his hands: he can pay the bounty to Darka and save the peasants, or be stubborn and greedy and see the peasants die. Tony and his council is the only one that has to take his responsibility, Gauhiu! - Easy

No, that doesn't hold water. Darka has to take responsibility for what Darka does. Darka's troops, under the orders of Darka's leadership, are raping and murdering. This is quite different from AJ, on his own, stabbing one of you whiny bastards in the night - not simply on a level of scale, but on a level of National Responsibility. An Abington noble once attacked a Cagilan noble - our realms were at peace, and are still at peace. What happened? Well, I punished that noble and the Cagilan Empire realized something everyone knows but which you are willfully ignoring in order to self-justify an unjust war - the actions of a criminal are not the actions of the State.

As for Darka being illegitimate, why, that is simply a statement of fact. You're a "mercenary company." You take your "orders" from "employers." That doesn't sound like a Sovereign Realm to me.

Lastly, you are once again trying to shake off the responsibility of your own actions. Trying to blame the victim. You do this with every time you barbarians go and pillage. It's always, and how conveniently, someone else's fault! I see this reasoning - as Arch Priest of a Realm - from criminals, all the time. Nearly every single criminal tries to blame his victim(s). Well, that may work for your own guilty consciences, but it doesn't work with regards to Justice, Reason and Rationality. Try again. House Olik

"your Volcanic Hot deceptionletter"

I find it somewhat ironic that you would even hurl that (Volcanic Hot deceptionletter). While Darka's newspaper may be biased (as to be expected from any publication originating from any place), isn't it for a journalist or a reporter to report the truth? Of course, it is up to the readers to decide on what is falsity and what is fact. And as a reader of the Abington First Newsletter, I see it as an editorial or a commentary publication. The facts here are bent and wrought to fit your agendum. Surely, the slanderous slew that spews from this spectacular sh- never mind. What I mean is, Gauhiu Olik, I believe anyone with two eyes and some mass solid between said eyes, would see this for what it is. (OOC: I LOLd.) Jezralhm 04:39, 28 January 2007 (CET)

If that is what you believe, then you will also believe they have no need for you to speak for them. If they have mass solid behind their eyes then they will make up their own minds without you needing to declare their opinions. What they may or may not think without saying is irrelevant to this discussion, and sheer speculation on your part until they do in fact, say something in agreement with you. (And what is this nonsense of "reporters?" I am a Noble. What are you?) House Olik 06:11, 28 January 2007 (CET)

Noble Olik, I sense much irony in what you have just said. You say I should not "speak for them" and that I have no need "to declare their opinions". This irony is not lost on me. Given that you are speaking for Abington, and avidly declaring your own opinion, perhaps then - debating with you should be divinely announced as a one way street, and that all shall nod in approval. Against your challenge: I fear there may be a problem with gathering an assembly to declare Abington First Newsletter as the true deceptionletter, in that the circulation of this newspaper is so limited as to have an audience of one, your own ego. What is this reporters I speak of? Well, my dear sir, it's one who investigates, reports or edits news stories. Given that you are, denying the fact you are a reporter then, shall I assume you submit to the fact that you agree with me and that you are not a reporter but a mere commentator who's opinion can be carelessly discarded like a grain of salt? Jezralhm 07:38, 28 January 2007 (CET)

I am not speaking in an official capacity for Abington. I speak for Abington First, and I speak for my family, and of course, for myself. I am not the one who just said words to the effect of, "anyone reading who is intelligent, agrees with me!" That would be your fallacy (argumentum ad populous), not mine. And quite clearly the circulation of this newsletter is not so limited as to merely myself, or you sir, would not have read it. And with regards to "reporters:" You were clearly making allusions to "reporting" as a profession, not as an activity. I may be writing news stories, but my profession is not "reporter." I am a Noble. So, your last assumption is merely more strawmen for the burning. And even if it weren't, are you saying that only one who is a "reporter" is immune to having their opinion "carelessly discarded?" Ridiculous! Now, have you anything relevant to add, or do you simply want to try pushing lies and fallacies again? House Olik 07:49, 28 January 2007 (CET)