[Molly]

Wolfpaw Dec. 09 2004,046

Originally Posted by Molly - Get a life. Oh, and being I've known Matt for years, I can tell you, he likely has reason to be smug. I would go into why, but then, I'm sure the very fundimentals of business would simply confuse you.

Well, gee whiz, Mr. Wolfpaw, sir, I stand corrected!

You see, in my total economical ignorance I just didn’t realise that being reasonably successful at a business venture also automatically gave you the right of being smug and arrogant. But don’t worry, you’ve opened my eyes and I’ve seen the light now!

I just have one tiny little question.

You see, amazingly enough I happen to be quite successful myself at my chosen profession in ‘Real Life’, (which incidentally has nothing to do with mudding). No doubt this is totally undeserved and out of sheer luck, since – as you and Mr. Mihaly so rightly point out - I am such a total financial nitwit. But there you go – I still earn quite a chunk of money from it. Enough money actually to allow me to devote part of my time to my hobbies, (one of which incidentally is running a non-commercial Mud).

So, my humble question now is; Does the fact that I am financially successful in RL automatically earn me the right of acting like an arrogant prick too, even if the business in question isn’t running a commercial Mud? Or do I have to start abusing the Diku licence and turn my Mud commercial to get the approval of the really cool guys like yourself and Mr. Mihaly?

Originally Posted by (wolfpaw @ Dec. 09 2004,04:10) Well.. I was going to keep my mouth shut too.. but, as it was put... man.. what the ... is wrong with some of you people? Now I will admit in advance I skipped around 14(!!<!--emo& pages of this crap.. so my comments are pretty general. Tyche - Your a moron on TMC, your a moron on TMS.

Hey you left out Mudmagic. I'm a moron there as well. Don't forget to mention MudMagic.

Originally Posted by (wolfpaw @ Dec. 09 2004,04:10) You love to talk ****.. but please, stop puffing yourself up and attacking everyone else, just to stroke your own ego.

This entire thread is full of ego stroking, and it doesn't happen to be mine.

Originally Posted by (wolfpaw @ Dec. 09 2004,04:10) There are very qualified shrinks that can help you with that.

Not bloody likely. :-)

Originally Posted by (wolfpaw @ Dec. 09 2004,04:10) Have you considered that your sheltered, close minded, at most times "blindingly stupid" idea of morality just might not match everyone elses? Jeez.. I mean.. hey.. they must be wrong! Lets just drop the general idea that everyone is entitled to an opinion, and attack all the other ones!

If I was in agreement, I wouldn't have posted Adolf.
I thought they were entitled to an opinion too, and I gave it.

Originally Posted by (wolfpaw @ Dec. 09 2004,04:10) Your like... the Hitler of Morals.. you want to exterminate anyone whose don't look like yours.

Yeah right. This is like a mud forum dude. It's words going back and forth. If you want to censor ideas that offend you, then maybe you should see Matt and create yet another forum that censors ideas and opinions you don't like.

Thankfully most of the successful forums merely concentrate on censoring prurient speech rather than opinions. Hmm fancy that.

Originally Posted by (wolfpaw @ Dec. 09 2004,04:10) Molly - Get a life. Oh, and being I've known Matt for years, I can tell you, he likely has reason to be smug. I would go into why, but then, I'm sure the very fundimentals of business would simply confuse you.

Hmmm... smug eh? Who'd have thought it?

Originally Posted by (wolfpaw @ Dec. 09 2004,04:10) Unlike some people, I opt to give something back. ... Has anyone considered that one must MAKE money to GIVE it away? Oh.. right.. were only supposed to give without any sort of return.. wow.. in the world of Tyche, you must have one #### of an economy.

Business, money, economy, eh?

While it may be a novel concept to you 40 million plus Americans give 20% or more of the personal incomes to charity every year. Another 40-60 million give 10%. They have real jobs. And they probably have hobbies too, like say.... mudding. Frankly if they all posted here boasting and crowing about how wonderful they are, I'd have to hire a whole staff of flamers. Might fix the economy though.

Originally Posted by (Threshold @ Dec. 09 2004,23:31) Sounds more like someone caught acting poorly and covering it up later by claiming it was an attempt at humor gone horribly wrong. Ask some gay people you know (assuming you know any) if they find it funny or acceptable even in that context. Many of them won't.

Hey now you're gay too. No points for you.

It must be frustrating not to be able to implement one's own intolerant administration policies on a public board. If you got that out of it then your score is now 2/3. If not, then I can't help you. I can show you how to get the parrot out of the cage though.

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by Molly O'Hara,Dec. 10 2004,10[img http://www.topmudsites.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif[/img]5]

Originally Posted by – as you and Mr. Mihaly so rightly point out - I am such a total financial nitwit.

Where did I point that out? Or is this just more of your lying? Second time in this thread you've simply made things up with regards to what I've said. You're on quite the roll. Multiple unprovoked attacks and multiple false accusations, all in the same thread! What will your response be, one wonders? Will you apologize for making blatantly false claims? No? How surprising!

Originally Posted by I have to start abusing the Diku licence

Naah, you're already abusing the Lucas license. Abusing the DIKU license would be a big step down for you.

--matt

[Threshold]

Originally Posted by (Tyche @ Dec. 10 2004,14:28) Hey now you're gay too. No points for you.

Your continued bigotry does nothing but further erode both your credibility and your failed attempt at seizing the moral high ground.

Originally Posted by It must be frustrating not to be able to implement one's own intolerant administration policies on a public board.

The fact that you assume someone would think this way is an interesting window into the way you think. Very sad, really.

Originally Posted by (Threshold @ Dec. 10 2004,15:28) Your continued bigotry does nothing but further erode both your credibility and your failed attempt at seizing the moral high ground.

"If you give people any in-game benefits for their donations, you are in fact giving a service for the money you have rescieved. That is a commercial transaction, and thus you are commercializing our work. This we object to."
-- Hans-Henrik Staerfeldt (1st September 2000)

If you view charity as just a "guerilla marketing" strategy, like was claimed here. And you donate to charities in return for publicity, return links, and boosting traffic hits, well it ain't charity at all. It's a flaming business transaction by your own admission. So don't bother lecturing us and boasting about your faux altruism. Your motivations for it have already been stipulated to, commercialism. Frankly you add a foul meaning to the word "charity", just like Mercthievia gave to the word "donation".

Someone: But everyone is doing it.

Well I think it's real gay. I'm letting you know just how gay it is.

Someone else: I object. That's offensive. You are redefining the word gay as an insult.

Hey everyone is doing it. Deal with it. Shame about what the high school kiddies have did to your gay word, ain't it?

If you figured that out, you've scored 3/3 and can now move on to Zork II.

[Threshold]

Tyche, is your posting account shared by multiple people? You aren't even coherent any longer.

You quoted me, and then you talked about things that had absolutely nothing to do with what I said or with anything I have even posted here.

You quoted a Diku author when I have not said anything about Diku nor do I run a Diku mud.

Furthermore, I am not a participant in the Child's Play charity drive so I have no idea why you act like I am.

Get your facts straight before you shoot off at the mouth. You are embarassing yourself.

Oh, and since you persist with this weird "score" tangent, here's YOUR score: No where in your rambling incoherent response did you come close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. We are all dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points and may God have mercy on your soul.

Originally Posted by (Threshold @ Dec. 10 2004,18:31) Tyche, is your posting account shared by multiple people? You aren't even coherent any longer.

Snarf gargle worf.

Originally Posted by (Threshold @ Dec. 10 2004,18:31) You quoted me, and then you talked about things that had absolutely nothing to do with what I said or with anything I have even posted here.

Oh now weren't you going on and on about me being a bigot and this "gay" word. I didn't much care about you going offtopic either, but that's the nature of public discussion forums. People didn't like me going offtopic on the "charity" thing either.

Originally Posted by (Threshold @ Dec. 10 2004,18:31) You quoted a Diku author when I have not said anything about Diku nor do I run a Diku mud.

So? Your point is what? That you can't be bothered with reading the thread and you don't like summaries.

Your gay interruption is the same as my charity interruption.
And that's a good point.

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by (Tyche @ Dec. 10 2004,14<!--emo&[img http://www.topmudsites.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif[/img])][While it may be a novel concept to you 40 million plus Americans give 20% or more of the personal incomes to charity every year.  Another 40-60 million give 10%.

Could you provide us with the source for these numbers? I have serious doubts that they're even close to true unless you include Americans who have no income (children, etc).

In 2003, Vertis did a study on Americans and their behaviors in terms of giving to charity and found that only 14% of adult Americans said they'd given $500 or more to charity in the previous year. Average household salary in 2002 was about $42,000. Heck, let's be generous and assume you were nonsensically including children in those averages. The average household in the US in 2003 had 1.91 people over the age of 18. Dividing 42k by 1.9 gets you average of 22k/year income. That means that, on average, only 14% of adults have given even 2.3% of their income to charity in the previous year.
 
So, where did you get your numbers from? I'd love to believe this was just a case of gullibility rather than, say, you just making things up.

--matt

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by (Tyche @ Dec. 10 2004,16:06) "If you give people any in-game benefits for their donations, you are in fact giving a service for the money you have rescieved. That is a commercial transaction, and thus you are commercializing our work. This we object to." -- Hans-Henrik Staerfeldt (1st September 2000)

I'm not really sure why you quoted this, frankly. The DIKU license was written years earlier. What his opinions on it are after it was written are no more inherently relevant to the license than the views of someone using the license, like Medievia. I mean, we have a license from Raymond Feist for his work, for instance. It's not as if anything he says now changes the terms of the license. Those terms were finalized. He couldn't just one day decide, "Well, we've decided that you owe us royalties based on gross revenue before cost of money rather than after cost of money. Yes, I know I said 'after cost of money' in the contract, but I've decided now that I meant something different."

A license is a contract, and while perhaps contracts may be unilaterally changed retroactively in some country somewhere, I'm pleased to report that such is not the case in the US.

--matt

[Jaewyn]

Ummm.... hello? I thought this thread was all about promoting text based muds to the outside world? What will people from the outside world think when they see people that run these muds behaving like this? C'mon folks, put your differences aside for the benefit of the mud community and work together so we all win, isn't that what this was all about?

Originally Posted by (the_logos @ Dec. 10 2004,20:13) I'm not really sure why you quoted this, frankly.

I told you why I quoted it, and it weren't to argue the Diku license. Reread the post without playing lawyer or accountant.
Your charity work ain't charity. It's commercial transactions.

As to former, the National Council of Churches. The RCUSA alone collected over 650 billion all by itself and Vertis apparently doesn't include that as charity. I do, and you are free to disagree.

A $200/hr lawyer and a $5.25/hr garbage man both take a day off to work 8 hours in a homeless shelter.

Q) Who gave more to charity? A) The garbage man.

But the lawyer did it to publicize his firm, "Dewey, Screwum, and Howe".

Q) Who gave more to charity? A) Well only one of them did any charity work at all, the garbage man.

But...but...but...That's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it. Have fun with the calculator and ledger.

[wolfpaw]

Originally Posted by Hey you left out Mudmagic.  I'm a moron there as well.  Don't forget to mention MudMagic.

I usually do try...

Originally Posted by This entire thread is full of ego stroking, and it doesn't happen to be mine.

Fair enough.

Originally Posted by If I was in agreement, I wouldn't have posted Adolf.   I thought they were entitled to an opinion too, and I gave it. --SNIP-- Yeah right.  This is like a mud forum dude.  It's words going back and forth.   If you want to censor ideas that offend you, then maybe you should see Matt and create yet another forum that censors ideas and opinions you don't like.   Thankfully most of the successful forums merely concentrate on censoring prurient speech rather than opinions.  Hmm fancy that.

I don't have any intention of censoring opinions. What I am trying to point out here, is don't you think your going just a LITTLE overboard on some of this? You make it sound so severe .. "lets put t-shirts on cancer kids!" .. that your point gets lost in laughable stupidity..

Originally Posted by Business, money, economy, eh?   While it may be a novel concept to you 40 million plus Americans give 20% or more of the personal incomes to charity every year.  Another 40-60 million give 10%.  They have real jobs.  And they probably have hobbies too, like say.... mudding.  Frankly if they all posted here boasting and crowing about how wonderful they are, I'd have to hire a whole staff of flamers. Might fix the economy though.

1. I'm Canadian.. so your defense doesn't apply to me. Not
that it really matters, but anyway.

2. Please define "real job" for me? Last time I checked, working 16 hours a day, taking care of corporate networks
and running a colo facility fell in the right category. While your at it, perhaps you'de like a copy of my income tax return? I probably gave more to charity last year then you made. Just because I run a mud host does not mean that is the only thing I do.. I'd certainly be broke if it was.

Next time you go into a grocery store, don't forget to call over the manager and flame him for hanging up a united way sign in the window. While your at it, please flame the kids that have unicef boxes on halloween, they get rewards for the amount of pennies. Oh, and let us not forget to flame the Waltons, for capitalizing on the fact that Target banned the salvation army from the front of thier stores.. but #### greedy walmart allows it..

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by (Tyche @ Dec. 10 2004,21:39) As to former, the National Council of Churches.  The RCUSA alone collected over 650 billion all by itself and Vertis apparently doesn't include that as charity.  I do, and you are free to disagree.   A $200/hr lawyer and a $5.25/hr garbage man both take a day off to work 8 hours in a homeless shelter.   Q) Who gave more to charity?  A) The garbage man. But the lawyer did it to publicize his firm, "Dewey, Screwum, and Howe". Q) Who gave more to charity?  A) Well only one of them did any charity work at all, the garbage man.

Fair enough. You're more concerned with image and motivation. I'm more concerned with who gets helped and how much they get helped. That it may benefit me is no different from anyone else who gives to charity and benefits from feeling good about themselves. I'm sorry if you feel that my getting benefit somehow makes it evil to help other people. That's a pretty darn sad position to take in my opinion, but clearly our opinions differ. I'm glad that everyone who gets something out of giving to charity (ie everyone who gives to charity) doesn't use that as a reason to stop giving.

--matt

[Sinuhe]

The_logos: Dec. 07 2004,18:26 and Dec. 08 2004,03:36

Originally Posted by Not my fault that Dulan, Molly, and company feel the need to flame me. Blame the source, not the target. ... I challenge you to find a single post from me on TMS in, say, the last -year-, in which I attacked any specific person when that person didn't attack me or someone else first.

Boy, you really crack me up. You remind me on a troublemaker, who used to create havoc on my mud and then said, “Wasn’t me!” when confronted.

Trying to shift the blame is a really immature thing to do, something one would expect from a 12-year old kid, not a grown man. Also there is more than one way to troll, and I think most posters here have you pretty well figured out by now.

If you habitually post things that are obnoxious and/or insulting to a large majority of other posters, you must expect some flames. You have a well established record of doing that. If a large number of your other posts are chest-puffing, ego-stroking and patting yourself on the back, expect some more flames. You have a well established record of doing that too. You set yourself up as the target, buddy, now live with it. If you cannot take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

Come to think of it, you are not even just the ‘target’. You are the ‘source’ of most of the problems yourself. I totally agree with KaVir. These boards were pretty nice and flame-free before you arrived here. They became pretty nice and flame-free again when you decided to withdraw from the discussions for a period. When you returned, the flame-wars started all over again. Seems a pretty clear case of cause and effect to me.

Feigning innocence isn’t going to change it either, it just confirms the picture.

[Hardestadt]

Originally Posted by (Sinuhe @ Dec. 11 2004,17:34) These boards were pretty nice and flame-free before you arrived here.

Originally Posted by the_logos Member Group: Members Posts: 736 Joined: Sep. 2002 Sinuhe Member Group: Members Posts: 11 Joined: Nov. 2003

Uhm...

Right.

Originally Posted by They became pretty nice and flame-free again when you decided to withdraw from the discussions for a period. When you returned, the flame-wars started all over again. Seems a pretty clear case of cause and effect to me.

Sounds like the argument many rapists use to blame their victims, if you ask me. 'They dressed provocatively, they were asking for it!' Who is at fault, the flamer or the flamed?

Regardless, I think this thread would benefit most from a lock. Matt, please open Minds Eye to the public!

-H

[Kastagaar]