Alright, so there's some random definition that stands in conflict with how Frontier describes and implemented the Alliance. Is Frontier therefore wrong? I follow the story which they gave us, and according to that EVERY member system has to accept and provide basic human rights.
I find it very.. unfortunate.. that you try to prevent the publication of our article just because you don't like what we state there. I don't like the accusations of your article either (especially as some of those are simply wrong), but I decided to counter them in an approriate way.
That being said, it would now feel very unfair in our eyes if our article was not going to get published. I know that might have happened even without Virgil's intervention, but now it would just feel wrong. Sorry for the pressure, Ian.
1. Those definitions are not 'random' - they are the literal definitions of the words. And yes, with all due respect to Ian et al., Frontier is an organization made up of human beings, and human beings can and do make mistakes. I want to believe the story Frontier gave us about the Alliance too, desperately, but the way the Alliance is currently implemented in-game in this regard means that either A. Frontier screwed up, and still hasn't fixed it (a plausible theory) B. the Alliance was actually designed to be fundamentally hypocritical in this way (many governments are hypocritical - this actually lends to the realism of the game, IMO). I don't know why you're mad at me for merely pointing out the disconnect between Mahon's comments and current in-game fact.
2. What about my comments indicated that I wanted your story blocked?? I'm genuinely confused. I merely wish the opportunity to refute your argument, just as you wish that same opportunity. Why are you getting so angry at me?
If you want to go with that point of view, then anything that has rule of law is authoritarian. Are you suggesting that only people living in Anarchies are truly free, because they do not have to obey rules or law?
You have to be quite careful of how you phrase your arguments, because quite often you'll find you've painted yourself into a corner that you did not mean to.
At first I was confused by your statement, then I realized that you're actually quibbling with Merriam-Webster's definition of the word. If you have a problem with how they 'phrase' things, that's between you and them, but to my knowledge they're a pretty authoritative source of information on the subject. Anyways, I removed the emphasis I put on 'requiring', just in case that was where your beef was...
Private messages are a thing you know fellers?
Note- feel free to delete this post to declutter the thread![]()
Absolutely right, sir! Kirby, Martin, if either of you wish to discuss this further, we can do it in a separate thread or via private messages. Sorry to start this whole mess and clutter up the thread, Ian - My apologies