metachronism said:
Of course I retaliate when there's provocation. I think that's something of an entitlement.
Ghandi said:
An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.
metachronism said:
Besides, I don't think I've said anything about him that wasn't evoked by what he has said or done...
SomeonePandetechsAge said:
I like decency and I agree that people who are socially inept shouldn't be in social environments, including this game.
But when someone makes a mistake, gets called on it, and publically apologizes, I just don't think there's anything useful in dragging it through the mud anymore.
As for:
metachronism said:
I wouldn't be so obstinate about not accepting an apology had there been some understandable motive. There clearly was none. At least no bad day would compel me to act like he did to people I didn't know.
(I understand "some understandable motive" to mean a motive for the inital incident, not the apology [as the grammar of the sentence would imply])
I would think that if there is clearly no motive, then an incident ought, from a moral perspective (correct me if that's not what you're asserting), to be considered LESS offensive than one which was initiated maliciously.
And I do find you obstinate, not because I think you're rehashing the issue, but because you're sticking to these principles that seem to be socially-based when the social community's voices have spoken up to assert that they find the apology an acceptable device, and your lack of personal effort to have been worthy of rebuke.
(That said,
/PeopleI'veComeToRespectFromTheFlameboardaddMetachronism.
Your argument is strong and not idiotic; I just happen to disagree with it; /shrug)
