spartaxoxo wrote: »Wouldn't mind the bards so much if the ones singing about Ayrenn in DC and EP taverns got booed, hissed and murdalized as they should rightfully be.
Yes, I thought about that too. This can be expanded even further perhaps, war and all...
@spartaxoxo Wasn't it you that wanted this poll shut up, because it is biased in your opinion?
Nope. It's objectively biased, which I pointed out. But I never said it should be closed. I noted my objection and then expressed support for the option to add it. I was forced to play devil's advocate because OP cannot fathom how insulting people who disagree with you in the poll options could possibly show bias.
spartaxoxo wrote: »they started insulting someone's name and such because they disagreed
spartaxoxo wrote: »Wouldn't mind the bards so much if the ones singing about Ayrenn in DC and EP taverns got booed, hissed and murdalized as they should rightfully be.
Yes, I thought about that too. This can be expanded even further perhaps, war and all...
@spartaxoxo Wasn't it you that wanted this poll shut up, because it is biased in your opinion?
Nope. It's objectively biased, which I pointed out. But I never said it should be closed. I noted my objection and then expressed support for the option to add it. I was forced to play devil's advocate because OP cannot fathom how insulting people who disagree with you in the poll options could possibly show bias.
There are clearly defined options saying no aswell as there are "yes"-choices. You are far from objective, in this case.
You can chose to ignore the rest next to the no/yes and just vote. Instead of getting enraged over it, you might provide some sensible explanation, why there should or should not be an option for audio as described. That's how you convince people, not by claiming something that is obviously not the case.
There are clearly defined options saying no aswell as there are "yes"-choices. You are far from objective, in this case.
You can chose to ignore the rest next to the no/yes and just vote. Instead of getting enraged over it, you might provide some sensible explanation, why there should or should not be an option for audio as described. That's how you convince people, not by claiming something that is obviously not the case.
spartaxoxo wrote: »they started insulting someone's name and such because they disagreed
Now, now. Let's not start lying. I've already asked you once to learn how to read. Let people take up for themselves. That's not really what happened. People shouldn't dish it out if they can't take it. I know you like to try to be some White Knight, but give it up.
spartaxoxo wrote: »they started insulting someone's name and such because they disagreed
Now, now. Let's not start lying. I've already asked you once to learn how to read. Let people take up for themselves. That's not really what happened. People shouldn't dish it out if they can't take it. I know you like to try to be some White Knight, but give it up.
Hi I'm speaking for myself.
You insulted my name because I disagreed.
Byeee
spartaxoxo wrote: »
There are clearly defined options saying no aswell as there are "yes"-choices. You are far from objective, in this case.
You can chose to ignore the rest next to the no/yes and just vote. Instead of getting enraged over it, you might provide some sensible explanation, why there should or should not be an option for audio as described. That's how you convince people, not by claiming something that is obviously not the case.
The poll is neutral if you ignore the wording. Hahaha. Okay. Now I have heard everything. That's so funny.
Objectively, the "yes" option was characterized neutrally or positively. Factually, the "no" option was characterized as negative. The OP explained they did that on purpose to take a swipe at people who tell others to be quiet, and because they don't believe there is any sensible reason that exists for someone to say no.
So it was done on purpose to attack anyone who disagrees with them by their own admission.
That's biased. Period and point blank.
And again, I support the addition of an option.
spartaxoxo wrote: »they started insulting someone's name and such because they disagreed
Now, now. Let's not start lying. I've already asked you once to learn how to read. Let people take up for themselves. That's not really what happened. People shouldn't dish it out if they can't take it. I know you like to try to be some White Knight, but give it up.
Hi I'm speaking for myself.
You insulted my name because I disagreed.
Byeee
Lol. Honey. Oh, sweet darling. I insulted your name because you implied that I should be embarrassed of myself. Like I said, don't dish it if you can't take it.
Byeeeeeeeeeeee
spartaxoxo wrote: »So it was done on purpose to attack anyone who disagrees with them by their own admission.
spartaxoxo wrote: »they started insulting someone's name and such because they disagreed
Now, now. Let's not start lying. I've already asked you once to learn how to read. Let people take up for themselves. That's not really what happened. People shouldn't dish it out if they can't take it. I know you like to try to be some White Knight, but give it up.
Hi I'm speaking for myself.
You insulted my name because I disagreed.
Byeee
Lol. Honey. Oh, sweet darling. I insulted your name because you implied that I should be embarrassed of myself. Like I said, don't dish it if you can't take it.
Byeeeeeeeeeeee