Shame on you guys. Once again, you're going to cause me to not wanna be here.
Okay? If you can't handle that people are going to have different opinions than you and different senses of humor, you ought to just go ahead and lock your front door and never leave the house.
Do you? You certainly haven't shown any indication that you do. See: this entire post.
Oh boy.
Non-sequitur. We weren't discussing what is and isn't fun. You said you were presenting history. You labeled an uncited, unsourced chronology as history. I said you weren't, and I explained why. You argued. I proved you wrong.
Don't like it? Not my problem; last I checked the goal of making an argument isn't to be popular, it's to make a point. Read it or don't, but if you can't handle being in an argument or being refuted, then maybe you shouldn't be trying to argue with someone.
Yeah, which is why I already made that sentiment previously. Funnily enough, your response was to ramble on about how seriously you take roleplaying.
Again, another non-sequitur statement - if you're not familiar with the term, it's Latin for "it does not follow." We're not discussing what is or isn't fun. We were discussing historical accuracy and your claims to writing, researching , and presenting history.
Fun has nothing to do with whether or not you're doing it correctly.
I wish I didn't make sense. Is roleplaying fun because the activity itself is enjoyable, or is it fun because you can look back ten years and go "Look, Bumfuck Bill was roleplaying back then, too!"
All evidence points to the former, considering the fact that there are a multitude of communities which have no contact with the "tradition" you erreonously referred to previously as history, and yet they seem to enjoy themselves just fine. If you enjoy roleplaying, it's likely because you enjoy writing. Not because other people did it before you. The fun of roleplay.. is found in roleplaying.
I thought that would be obvious. Apparently not.
You said that last time, too. And yet, here you are. Posting again.
That's what I usually do when I prove people wrong, yeah.
I'm not attempting to make you angry, although I am certainly taking the mick because you make yourself such an easy target by being a humorless, pretentious prat who is incapable of doing anything other than taking himself far, far too seriously. However, that's not to make you angry - it's just because it's funny. But then again, you don't have any apparent sense of humor.. so I could see how you might get your feathers in a ruffle.
If being proven wrong makes you angry, that's a personal problem. One that I'm, personally, not concerned with.
Oh, this old fallback. It's always funny to see it. "Oh no, he's getting the better of me in an argument and I can't respond to him! OBVIOUSLY HE MUST BE TROLLING ME BECAUSE NO ONE COULD POSSIBLY HAVE A LEGITIMATELY DIVERGENT POINT OF VIEW OR EVER PROVE ME WRONG!!!"
Super cool story.
The vast majority of your posts say otherwise where you rant about how you're going to defend your clan's honor and how seriously you take roleplaying as an ancient art of.. whatever it is you actually think roleplaying to be.
Which is all well and good, especially since I never tried to do that. Let's all have a golf clap for the guy who thinks that being told that his chronology is historically unverified is the same as being told none of it ever happened.
I never said anything you claimed never happened - except for the obvious, where you got your dates wrong. What I did say - and which is true, as I've explained in a moderate amount of detail - is that your chronology cannot accurately be called history because as a historical record it lacks the necessary criteria (i.e. sources, citations, etc).
You wanted to write history. You initially claimed your chronology as such. I told you why it wasn't, and how to fix that. I figured a "Grandmaster" would be able to take criticism where it's due, but I'm glad to see you're every bit as pretentiously incapable of accepting that you're wrong as the misplaced title suggests.
Have fun.