Thread:Auraestus/@comment-26210095-20160405232513/@comment-26347028-20160406183712

Edacnik wrote: Indeed she does, but when I avoid arguing with one who goes as far as calling me arrogant, ignorant, slanderous, and a liar, then telling me to go to hell, I argue no more. Why argue with one as blatantly unkind and untrue as her? She can talk to Auraestus all she wants, but when she brings up this false propaganda against me, and tells me to go to hell, she's only ensuring her fall.

Now I ask you, friends, who is the one being attacked? The one who quietly tells Auraestus true facts about a particular few users who are wrong doing, or the one who walks onto the thread, calls me names, then tells me I should go to hell? It is obvious, and if you say it's her, pity be to you. "when I avoid arguing with one who goes as far as calling me arrogant, ignorant, slanderous, and a liar"

An eye for an eye. You said the exact same to me. How, then, do you justify how ludicrously hypocritical that defense is? And, might I add, starting it is hardly avoiding it!

"Why argue with one as blatantly unkind and untrue as her?"

If it's so blatant how about you give a few reasons? Surely that isn't too much to ask? A few reasons to back up such wild claims as you just gave isn't a massive ask, is it?

"who is the one being attacked?"

How about the one who had the first blow thrown at them?

"quietly tells Auraestus true facts"

Quietly? If it was quiet I wouldn't have seen such provocation. True? If it was so clearly true this conversation wouldn't be happening. How rich if you to speak of truth. He who claims to be such a virtuous man; yet blackens the name of one who is certainly not so deserving as he deems.

"one who walks onto the thread, calls me names"

By that definition anyone here who mentions you attacks you. That's genius that is. On another note, I have every reason to defend myself. And, if you got more than you bargained for, that isn't my fault. You attacked first; excuse me if the attacker is now wounded.

"if you say it's her, pity be to you."

Well, hark who's talking. With no evidence, you certainly shouldn't be so quick to jump to conclusions. Perhaps the reasoning behind the lack of evidence is just that. A flat out lack of it. Surely, if you have no case against me, as right as you think you are; that shouldn't be here in the first place. If you can't back up your claims then they are obviously false. I've backed up mine, but you still lack. If you don't change that, then it is clear who is slandering here; if it wasn't clear enough already. I may have said a few things, but 80% was true. How about you prove that more than 1% of your stuff is true, Edacnik? Because right now nought but wind and hot air has come from your corner.