[Molly]

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

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

Not bloody likely. :-)

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

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.


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

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.

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]

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!


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

--matt

[Threshold]

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

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

"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.

Snarf gargle worf.

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.

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]

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]

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?

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]

[the_logos]

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
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]

Uhm...

Right.

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]

Y'know, a mate of mine justified this to me once.  He said something along the lines of:

"Well, back in the 60s or 70s or whenever-the-heck-it-was, "gay" was redefined from being "gay" to being, well, "gay".  Now we're just doing the same thing.  We don't mean "gay" as in "gay", nor do we mean it as in "gay".  We mean it as in "gay"."

How gay.