(My favorites, of course, are the stitched card sphere, the measuring tape sphere, and the one based on bike wheel reflectors.)
Go Oz! There's hope for the Lindens yet.
And back to the grind...I mean, the Escapist thread.
I'm going to eliminate a lot of the controversy that BROUGHT us to this point (at least, in preservation-capture mode), but halfway down page 63, there was a question.
TypeSD: Can someone tell me what the hell I'm being accused of? I am not James from Extra Credits. I'm a jumped up Aussie with a love for the Escapist and Extra Credits.
Hagi responded: I'm fairly certain, although not entirely, that zvate would like you to add in the parts that Alexander omitted from my post which Alexander quoted which you quoted. If that makes any sense?
Maybe. There was also an implication from zvate that indicated he was upset because TypeSD, who uses a Jack O'Neill user icon, was in fact James Portnow from Extra Credits, and...that's just a baffling level of stupid, there.
How'ver, I can't find the original reply, and at this point, really don't care, but if you care to follow the logic, we have a lovely run-down from Hagi:
What I think it means:So, there you have it.
- TypeSD's avatar has the name Jack.
- TypeSD seems to be mostly supporting EC, not TE.
- TypeSD quoted directly from Alexander, not taking into account that Alexander only quoted half my post.
- zvate feels that TypeSD should've added in the part of my post that Alexander omitted in order to fairly represent both sides since TypeSD seems to be supporting EC.
- zvate feels that TypeSD not doing this implies that his OP is compromised and giving an unfair recollection of events in favor of EC.
Meanwhile, there was another back-and-forth interchange that I came across while searching for zvate's reply. This one started on page 58:
Ramzal: And do all the people who've donated agree with you? Or for that matter, do all the people who voted and did NOT pick that option agree with you? Every single last one of them? And what about the people who went over the donation goal before the poll went up agree as well? If not then there is a flaw to your logic.
To which this was Kian2's reply: Yes, EVERY SINGLE PERSON THAT DONATED AGREED.
You know how you can be sure of that? Because if they hadn't agreed, they wouldn't have donated.
YOU CANNOT DONATE WITHOUT SEEING THE AMOUNT ALREADY DONATED.
If you donated before they hit their required funds, then you can be certain that the money will go to help Allyson. She alrady got the operation, in fact, and will not face any needs in the coming months until she is fully recovered. Exactly what the fundaraiser was for.
If you donated after they hit their mark, but before you were certain what the money would be spent on, then you are implicitly agreeing to have that money go towards whatever cause they choose to spend it on, regardless of your opinion. No one was forcing you to donate, they had already made it clear that they had all they needed.
If you donated after they decided on the cause, then you obviously must agree with the destination. Why donate otherwise?
As for research, the current situation is a matter of who said what, but there's a wealth of historical data to educate yourself and form a more informed opinion. There's the Extra Credits episodes where they talk about the fundraiser, and how they already have the money they need and are deciding what to do with the surpluss.
There's the RocketHub page. Have you actually gone there, and seen how RocketHub works?
There's their Facebook and Twitter posts where they discussed the destination of the funds. Have you gone back to look at them?
That's all free, open, unalterable evidence of the events leading up to this. If you didn't feel inclined to donate, don't hold it against them that they didn't go to more effort to educate the people who didn't care. Those who cared enough to donate and keep up with the issue were kept up to date.
I didn't quote the entirety of Kian's response (that's here if you really want to read it all), but this bit? Sheer perfection, and yes--very well reasoned, indeed.
Of course, as of August 11th, tempers are starting to fray. I present Exhibit A, TypeSD's response to zvate:
It does not. Zvate, link me to what you want added, tell me where you want it put. We'll go from there.
Also don't jump to idiotic conclusions which display a lack of knowledge and sense.
Right.
zvate: Alright, my bad. I'm glad my worst mistakes happen online and not off.... Anyway please include full quotations in your initial post as the partials tend to distort the meaning. I realize that such may demean relevancy but I think its important...
Owyn_Merrilin in response: You don't seem to have spent much time on the forums, so it's understandable that you don't know this, but it was actually Archon who omitted portions of Hagi's quote. The quote system here allows you to edit the text of what you're quoting, partially to allow you to get to the parts that apply to you, and Archon did that. When TypeSD quoted Archon in turn, the parts that Archon had edited out stayed edited out. It's actually a completely fair representation of events, since it was supposed to show Archon's response, not Hagi's question.
(By the way, in case you didn't know, Archon is Alexander Macris' screen name, which is why anything he says is relevant to the thread.)
And zvate's reply in turn: with the re-quotes.... I don't know, maybe it is too hard and I just saw something weird too late night... anyway, sorry for the initial misjump of bile...
I guess that's that.
So this one's kind of short--aheh--but I am trying to speed this unfortunate obsession along, so here you go. At some point in the next couple of days, oh, six, seven posts from now, I'll do another round-up of links, because the gods forbid, we wouldn't want anyone to get lost, now.
Gods, I need a hobby.
Besides this one.
And Second Life.
And all my other hobbies...
0 comments:
Post a Comment