can you say "pwnt" ???

I can say pwnment!

Uhm, was meant to be a funny log, without some uber skillz :P

Funny log. Pwned indeed.

I wonder if Kraq actually remembered any of this the next day. I remember the incident, and he sounded very drunk indeed.

Wow...way to go there. You're worse than him, I hope you know, because when you acted, you expressed that you knew it was wrong, but justified it to yourself anyway. You also took advantage of him when he was intoxicated.

Here's a lesson for you: Two wrongs don't make a right.

I fail to see the amusement in what you did, and it was a cowardly act on many levels. Why not openly challenge him if you have a problem with his actions? Instead you want to snake him like this? Your cowardly act only validated his previous actions.

How laughable that the poster would try to take the moral high ground. Two thumbs down for this log.

Hehe ... the charm of being flammed.

Unknown1: - and - equals +
The guy took advantage of many more even when not intoxicated. Furthermore, your name shows a cowardly act.

Unknown2: Get yourself laid or sth.

First off...I don't even play MUME. I used to...I quit because it became a culture of bad faith instead of a culture of skill and fellowship. Posting my name here would mean nothing as noone would recognize it. If you want to put a label on me, just call me The Protagonist.

I find it brutally predictable that the main theme of your response to my post had nothing to do with the content of my post itself, but instead attacked the fact that I posted anon. That tells me that there is no excuse for your actions even in your own mind that you could come up with.

You simply saw a chance to same-side someone while still taking the moral high-ground and you took advantage of it. I only posted to let you know that you aren't fooling me for one, and hopefullu many others, and to point out that your act was every bit as dispicable as his.

However, that concept seems be to FAR beyond your moral comprehension.

Who is moral comprehensing now? Who is taking the high-ground now?

Your interpretation of this log + all other secret and hidden meanings (discovered only to your sharp eye) are FAR FAR FAR beyond any savvy.

And I don't care if you don't play MUME - maybe that's why you are not competent to judge it anyway.

We wouldn't know your name? So you're saying you're a pussy and you were unimportant or what?

Again, this isn't and never was about me or who I am. That's what people try to turn it into when they lose on the real issue.

Delirium used consequential reasoning to justify same-siding the person; i.e. he realized there was no consequence, therefore he thought it was okay. What you want to try to do is to use deontological reasoning, which looks at the act itself and whether it is right or wrong, whether or not there was a consequence. What Delirium here (on a smaller scale, granted) was show me what he was capable of when he percieves that there would be no consequence to his actions. For example, you wouldn't want to leave him alone in your room with money lying around, because if nobody is there to witness him stealing, you never know if his little brain would calculate that there would be no consequence for stealing from you.

Capice? Or do I need to dissect this little maggot's actions further?

Once again, who I am is irrelevant and always was in the context of this conversation. You people worry far too much about "who" is saying something rather than the merit of the statements themselves.

Whatever.

It looks like you can't read at all even if your English looks soo sophisticated. No one was trying to justify my action or any other deep meanings you see all the time. It was meant to be funny and if you don't find it funny just shut up and don't waste Mandor's base with some huge lame debates.

Spam was posted here!

Kraq sounds an awfully like p(Dunk/Dink) and p(Tsar)