On another note since we were talking about the Russian investigation, the probe might be legally dead and the case over. No less, the rumor is that it is to be addressed next week, perhaps Friday in some official format, meaning we might get to know something on it. Regardless of what it is, this is another nail in the coffin for this investigation's sloppy attempt.
The Harbinger of Ferocity Member
STATUS: Masses are always breeding grounds of psychic epidemics. 6 yrs ago- Last Seen: 4 yrs ago
- Joined: 12 yrs ago
- Posts: 3754 (0.86 / day)
- VMs: 0
-
Username history
- The Harbinger of Ferocity 12 yrs ago
-
Latest 10 profile visitors:
-
Most recent →
Vixere,
Captain Uni,
parelaxis,
Passable Writer,
rush99999,
Nightwing95
Status
Recent Statuses
6 yrs ago
Current
Masses are always breeding grounds of psychic epidemics.
6 yrs ago
The highest, most decisive experience is to be alone with one's own self. You must be alone to find out what supports you, when you find that you can not support yourself.
1
like
7 yrs ago
One cannot live from anything except what one is.
7 yrs ago
The slave to virtue finds the way as little as the slave to vices.
7 yrs ago
The core of an individual is the mystery of life, which dies when it is 'grasped'. That is also why symbols want to keep their secrets.
Bio
The Harbinger of Ferocity
Agent of the Wild, Aspect of the Ferine
Nature, red in tooth and claw.
"There is, indeed, no single quality of the cat that man could not emulate to his advantage."
- Carl Van Vechten
I am, at my core, a personification and manifestation of those things whose blood and hearts run red with the ferocity of the animal world. It is this which convicts and controls my works, my writing, my being; the force and guidance in which I gain wisdom from. It is what inspires me as a creator and weaver of words, the very thing I admire as an author.
My leanings, savage as they are, are of the feline sort as there exists no greater lineage of beasts whom can be drawn from. No others captivate and motivate my talent and skill as the greatest of cats do.
Most Recent Posts
@catchamber
You never said you would influence it; done, that simple. The criteria you gave me there says nothing about your proposed or projected interference. You never stated anything about my inability to make my own choices and by implication you are suggesting I do have free will.
You merely know anything I will do, meaning no matter what individual choice I make, you can counter it. I however, because I have free will, can still choose. The choice is not an illusion either, it is just that you will still be able to act or react to it. As simple as an example I could give you is if I choose red, you know to choose blue. If I pick the apples, you chose the oranges. If my starter type was Fire, yours is Water.
I was still allowed to choose, but an all powerful thing will always out play you every time.
Now it is my turn.
Make a case for how or why people do not have free will in the context of the Christian God who we were talking about. Since you seem to know it so much better than the rest of us, reveal to us your theological exploit for which there is no rebuttals any of, believers or non-believers, could argue from our own doctrine.
Also, feel free to use as many words as you deem needed for it. I am not one to make arbitrary requests just for convenience.
You never said you would influence it; done, that simple. The criteria you gave me there says nothing about your proposed or projected interference. You never stated anything about my inability to make my own choices and by implication you are suggesting I do have free will.
You merely know anything I will do, meaning no matter what individual choice I make, you can counter it. I however, because I have free will, can still choose. The choice is not an illusion either, it is just that you will still be able to act or react to it. As simple as an example I could give you is if I choose red, you know to choose blue. If I pick the apples, you chose the oranges. If my starter type was Fire, yours is Water.
I was still allowed to choose, but an all powerful thing will always out play you every time.
Now it is my turn.
Make a case for how or why people do not have free will in the context of the Christian God who we were talking about. Since you seem to know it so much better than the rest of us, reveal to us your theological exploit for which there is no rebuttals any of, believers or non-believers, could argue from our own doctrine.
Also, feel free to use as many words as you deem needed for it. I am not one to make arbitrary requests just for convenience.
@Scott Silverado
You do realize, regardless of net neutrality or not, so before and now, that providers and websites were legally entitled to retain their "editorial rights" against your usage, correct? In neither case has that changed. The reason providers do not do this, at least not normally, is because they would a great amount of customers, thus consumer confidence, and market viability. There is a reason that censorship you are actually seeing, such as infamously with Google, Facebook, Twitter and their ilk, is because they legally can do it; morally they shouldn't be, but laws do not really dabble in morality as the internet goes.
For the arguments about having only one provider, this goes back to the revocation of Title II protection and transfer of primary agency to the Federal Trade Commission. It is a motion toward consumer protection, meaning if you start suffering abuse and mistreatment by a provider who is the only provider, one who is not engaging in fair play, you can - assuming you can prove it, which is the difficult component - press for a civil suit, in addition to those backed by the Federal Trade Commission. Another added benefit of this change is that the Federal Trade Commission has a unique power they intend to use and have openly spoken about; their antimonopoly powers. A provider is too big and too controlling, abusing customers who have no choice? Not for long.
Going into the distant future, the Federal Trade Commission and Federal Communications Commission have admitted their intent is to begin breaking down the major internet superpowers, both sites and providers. What this means or how they intend to do it they have not yet discussed in public to my awareness.
The important thing to remember in all of this is the following:
You do realize, regardless of net neutrality or not, so before and now, that providers and websites were legally entitled to retain their "editorial rights" against your usage, correct? In neither case has that changed. The reason providers do not do this, at least not normally, is because they would a great amount of customers, thus consumer confidence, and market viability. There is a reason that censorship you are actually seeing, such as infamously with Google, Facebook, Twitter and their ilk, is because they legally can do it; morally they shouldn't be, but laws do not really dabble in morality as the internet goes.
For the arguments about having only one provider, this goes back to the revocation of Title II protection and transfer of primary agency to the Federal Trade Commission. It is a motion toward consumer protection, meaning if you start suffering abuse and mistreatment by a provider who is the only provider, one who is not engaging in fair play, you can - assuming you can prove it, which is the difficult component - press for a civil suit, in addition to those backed by the Federal Trade Commission. Another added benefit of this change is that the Federal Trade Commission has a unique power they intend to use and have openly spoken about; their antimonopoly powers. A provider is too big and too controlling, abusing customers who have no choice? Not for long.
Going into the distant future, the Federal Trade Commission and Federal Communications Commission have admitted their intent is to begin breaking down the major internet superpowers, both sites and providers. What this means or how they intend to do it they have not yet discussed in public to my awareness.
The important thing to remember in all of this is the following:
- The "net neutrality" rules we all know went back to pre-2015 standards.
- The Federal Trade Commission, no longer the Federal Communications Commission, is the new go-to.
- The Title II classification of the internet has been removed.
Exactly as @Dark Wind went on with, that "net neutrality" is a carefully packaged lie that was fed to the public with the intent of having them buy into something they knew nothing about. A few short, important details about are that the reason the Federal Communications Commission had to reclassify it as the infamous Title II was because of activist judges more or less saying that somehow they did not have an argument in court despite being the ones to write operational guidelines on it and be one of several avenues to start up a lawsuit for violations. In essence, the only reason it truly needed to be reclassified is because users lost protection, rather than gained any, under the ideal of "net neutrality".
The new system more or less enforces a standard on the providers that they have no real recourse for. If they conspire against consumers, say they all agree to start charging for services, they can be taken down by the Federal Trade Commission and broken up as a monopoly - which is already something on the table that is on the book to be done; breaking the giants like Google, Facebook, Comcast, and their fellow ilk. If a provider begins charging for varied services, as is their right, users can migrate to other providers and effectively weed out the competition who made such a foolish motion as others noted here.
Continued, I learned something novel today that more or less allowed the federal government, under the old "net neutrality" rules, to silence anyone who the Department of State determined to be a propaganda outlet. Apparently it was hidden away in the budget for 2017 and oddly its provision only lasts for eight years. Why is this important? Well, because with no trial or judgment, the government could at whim take away your internet usage directly through your provider because of Title II if they so much as thought you were an opponent. So much for freedom of speech there, am I wrong? Another unsettling fact was that the way they pursued "net neutrality" was through a set of obsolete rules and obscure rules. Why all the fuss when they could have just done so with a new provision? A bit odd.
The downside to this is that while we have gone back to pre-2015 rules, people are still not going to properly know how to pursue or even uncover unlawful actions by providers and it will always take quite some time to prosecute them.
The new system more or less enforces a standard on the providers that they have no real recourse for. If they conspire against consumers, say they all agree to start charging for services, they can be taken down by the Federal Trade Commission and broken up as a monopoly - which is already something on the table that is on the book to be done; breaking the giants like Google, Facebook, Comcast, and their fellow ilk. If a provider begins charging for varied services, as is their right, users can migrate to other providers and effectively weed out the competition who made such a foolish motion as others noted here.
Continued, I learned something novel today that more or less allowed the federal government, under the old "net neutrality" rules, to silence anyone who the Department of State determined to be a propaganda outlet. Apparently it was hidden away in the budget for 2017 and oddly its provision only lasts for eight years. Why is this important? Well, because with no trial or judgment, the government could at whim take away your internet usage directly through your provider because of Title II if they so much as thought you were an opponent. So much for freedom of speech there, am I wrong? Another unsettling fact was that the way they pursued "net neutrality" was through a set of obsolete rules and obscure rules. Why all the fuss when they could have just done so with a new provision? A bit odd.
The downside to this is that while we have gone back to pre-2015 rules, people are still not going to properly know how to pursue or even uncover unlawful actions by providers and it will always take quite some time to prosecute them.
Going forward, can we receive mentions when affected by something? I would never have known anything happened to me and that I needed immediately write down had I not gone to reread the section of events. I missed her name entirely among the large list.
@catchamber
Yes, I am sure we should weigh things on what humans deem meritable rather than the cosmic entirety of everything in the context of a being that is considered all knowing and all powerful. Excellent standards set there, I can in no way foresee how that is a logical fallacy and false equivalency. Retort aside, it appears you are not grasping that the God in question is offering not demanding a relationship and or freedom in return for submission. I will repeat it again, the philosophy of this faith goes that in order for one to be free of their sin and evils - those imposed on them by the choices of their forefathers and the way Satan manipulated them - they must bend knee and submit, but they are not forced to. It is entirely and completely the person's choice, consequences for both actions laid bare.
That said, do excuse me if I take your holding of God to your standards as a nonsensical argument. You are legitimately saying in essence, "Well I know, or people know that they know, better than God, because our standards are better and we have better ethics." That is an irrational argument and I will not entertain it, I apologize. Feel free to believe what you personally want, but on this subject that has no weight.
Proceeding to the argument of free will versus God's plan, I propose it this following way; you may choose any action you deem fit but God, being able to foresee and know all outcomes, will always be at least one step ahead of you if not unquestionably more. You are allowed to choose because no matter what you do choose there is no way you can interfere or intervene in a way that would not benefit him. You might not call this free will but at that point you are using your own definitions, as you oft do, for something regarded as a settled matter in its context. There is no conflict of function other than the ones people attempt to enforce on the debate - legitimately nothing is preventing God from being both all powerful and all knowing while you retain free will, because in the end, he will always circumvent you because he will always know exactly how to, leaving your choices to be your own and the results determined from them, but always to his benefit.
Transitioning completely, no, you are reading exactly what you want to - entirely out of context as I proved - what you desire from the argument you are making. You are legitimately stating that I am incorrect because of one passage, which by technical and purest form in absolute isolate is true, but no one operates in that vacuum and to claim they do is willful ignorance. To dismantle this further, the outcome you are talking about requires the absolute destruction and dissolution of the old Heaven and Earth, remade by God - legitimately making "all things new" - and all people who have died and given themselves to him to be reborn as he promised them from the start. It says nothing in there or at all about how "your personal comfort and consolation are my goal" when it is pretty evident the rule of the Kingdom of Heaven and God is the end goal. Your happiness is granted as reward for participation and good loyalty, not just for existing; you do not get a participation trophy.
Never the less, just because God has foreseen that you will sin and knows that you will sin, does not mean he will intervene with his shield at the ready to stay your hand. He is not obligated to, in fact, there is no apparent desire to. Why? Because sin is a choice, this is repeated time and again, being the very reason people need ask for atonement and pray for forgiveness when they do sin. No one is forcing people to do this, so however "petty" it is, is your perception. As far as I can see, and as far as history demonstrates, being able to continue to make the same or worse mistake time and time again so you can retain your own independent agency then return to submit for forgiveness isn't something you see in the real world; the idea of it is very inhuman. I know of no person who, no matter how many times you fail in your oaths, what a fool you make of yourself, how humiliating you violate yourself, or how evil you act, will always forgive you if you are sincere.
As for the "no justification of Hell", do not humor yourself too much. The justification is pretty evident throughout the Bible, in that man was told not to do one thing - of the countless and many things he was allowed to do - yet still was fooled by the deceiver, cast out of paradise, the traitor angels cast out too, and man told that for his failures from here on out would have actual consequence, that consequence being without God and dying a death. The justification seems pretty clear and evident, the same philosophy for why say, prison exists to use a crude example; you break the law, you are punished. The difference came later that someone who could always forgive you and absolve you of those things was a factor. Arguing that God is responsible for sin is utterly lifting the responsibility off of man and Satan in the drama, which is both naive and foolish; Satan was openly jealous and angry that God favored a lesser being so much so over the far greater angelic hosts and sought to prove to God how fallible and weak man was. The end result that both were punished, which is pretty rational.
Another matter, I would call your thought of "unwarranted demands for respect" a notion that does not take into totality of the thing we are discussing. We are talking about a literal god, the God of an entire system of faith, and you are claiming that their demands are "irrational and hypocritical". I might say it best with this, "Just who are you?" It is arrogance at its supreme to say to a literal all-powerful thing, "Well, in my opinion, I do not like these things." Who are you again? An absolute nobody, correct? Just any other human being like the rest?
There is no other reasonable way to interpret that approach. It is a demand, unspoken and completely implied. Humans have no special authority or respect they need be granted or due. They are not the glittering, glinting, drifting snowflakes they all think themselves to be, because in the eyes of the religion they are stained by sin - any beauty, admirability or greatness ruined until they are redeemed. In short, I will phrase it my way, "Get over yourselves and your opinions."
And as for it being "retarded" and your "argument" thereafter, consider that a "cute" response, one which I will just smile and nod to, allowing you to stick to it; I know your mind isn't going to change no matter what argument I pose. It is as classically human as anyone could expect and utterly focused upon itself. As for me? I am more than content to admit I take that process of thought less seriously than I do faiths of questionable status or those I outright reject as valid.
Given nothing of value is going to come from debating with you, as it classically hasn't from my experience, feel free to carry on with someone else if you wish.
Yes, I am sure we should weigh things on what humans deem meritable rather than the cosmic entirety of everything in the context of a being that is considered all knowing and all powerful. Excellent standards set there, I can in no way foresee how that is a logical fallacy and false equivalency. Retort aside, it appears you are not grasping that the God in question is offering not demanding a relationship and or freedom in return for submission. I will repeat it again, the philosophy of this faith goes that in order for one to be free of their sin and evils - those imposed on them by the choices of their forefathers and the way Satan manipulated them - they must bend knee and submit, but they are not forced to. It is entirely and completely the person's choice, consequences for both actions laid bare.
That said, do excuse me if I take your holding of God to your standards as a nonsensical argument. You are legitimately saying in essence, "Well I know, or people know that they know, better than God, because our standards are better and we have better ethics." That is an irrational argument and I will not entertain it, I apologize. Feel free to believe what you personally want, but on this subject that has no weight.
Proceeding to the argument of free will versus God's plan, I propose it this following way; you may choose any action you deem fit but God, being able to foresee and know all outcomes, will always be at least one step ahead of you if not unquestionably more. You are allowed to choose because no matter what you do choose there is no way you can interfere or intervene in a way that would not benefit him. You might not call this free will but at that point you are using your own definitions, as you oft do, for something regarded as a settled matter in its context. There is no conflict of function other than the ones people attempt to enforce on the debate - legitimately nothing is preventing God from being both all powerful and all knowing while you retain free will, because in the end, he will always circumvent you because he will always know exactly how to, leaving your choices to be your own and the results determined from them, but always to his benefit.
Transitioning completely, no, you are reading exactly what you want to - entirely out of context as I proved - what you desire from the argument you are making. You are legitimately stating that I am incorrect because of one passage, which by technical and purest form in absolute isolate is true, but no one operates in that vacuum and to claim they do is willful ignorance. To dismantle this further, the outcome you are talking about requires the absolute destruction and dissolution of the old Heaven and Earth, remade by God - legitimately making "all things new" - and all people who have died and given themselves to him to be reborn as he promised them from the start. It says nothing in there or at all about how "your personal comfort and consolation are my goal" when it is pretty evident the rule of the Kingdom of Heaven and God is the end goal. Your happiness is granted as reward for participation and good loyalty, not just for existing; you do not get a participation trophy.
Never the less, just because God has foreseen that you will sin and knows that you will sin, does not mean he will intervene with his shield at the ready to stay your hand. He is not obligated to, in fact, there is no apparent desire to. Why? Because sin is a choice, this is repeated time and again, being the very reason people need ask for atonement and pray for forgiveness when they do sin. No one is forcing people to do this, so however "petty" it is, is your perception. As far as I can see, and as far as history demonstrates, being able to continue to make the same or worse mistake time and time again so you can retain your own independent agency then return to submit for forgiveness isn't something you see in the real world; the idea of it is very inhuman. I know of no person who, no matter how many times you fail in your oaths, what a fool you make of yourself, how humiliating you violate yourself, or how evil you act, will always forgive you if you are sincere.
As for the "no justification of Hell", do not humor yourself too much. The justification is pretty evident throughout the Bible, in that man was told not to do one thing - of the countless and many things he was allowed to do - yet still was fooled by the deceiver, cast out of paradise, the traitor angels cast out too, and man told that for his failures from here on out would have actual consequence, that consequence being without God and dying a death. The justification seems pretty clear and evident, the same philosophy for why say, prison exists to use a crude example; you break the law, you are punished. The difference came later that someone who could always forgive you and absolve you of those things was a factor. Arguing that God is responsible for sin is utterly lifting the responsibility off of man and Satan in the drama, which is both naive and foolish; Satan was openly jealous and angry that God favored a lesser being so much so over the far greater angelic hosts and sought to prove to God how fallible and weak man was. The end result that both were punished, which is pretty rational.
Another matter, I would call your thought of "unwarranted demands for respect" a notion that does not take into totality of the thing we are discussing. We are talking about a literal god, the God of an entire system of faith, and you are claiming that their demands are "irrational and hypocritical". I might say it best with this, "Just who are you?" It is arrogance at its supreme to say to a literal all-powerful thing, "Well, in my opinion, I do not like these things." Who are you again? An absolute nobody, correct? Just any other human being like the rest?
There is no other reasonable way to interpret that approach. It is a demand, unspoken and completely implied. Humans have no special authority or respect they need be granted or due. They are not the glittering, glinting, drifting snowflakes they all think themselves to be, because in the eyes of the religion they are stained by sin - any beauty, admirability or greatness ruined until they are redeemed. In short, I will phrase it my way, "Get over yourselves and your opinions."
And as for it being "retarded" and your "argument" thereafter, consider that a "cute" response, one which I will just smile and nod to, allowing you to stick to it; I know your mind isn't going to change no matter what argument I pose. It is as classically human as anyone could expect and utterly focused upon itself. As for me? I am more than content to admit I take that process of thought less seriously than I do faiths of questionable status or those I outright reject as valid.
Given nothing of value is going to come from debating with you, as it classically hasn't from my experience, feel free to carry on with someone else if you wish.
@POOHEAD189
When ever does the current administration admit anything to their opposition? Look at the lengths they have gone to in order to prevent leaking. Everything they do behind the scenes is under absolute lock and key, utter secrecy, because anything they do - even going back to the moon - is somehow fuel for controversy and spite. As for having "Nothing to hide.", that seems to be the real issue, that they have nothing to hide. But this comes back around, do you enjoy people spying on you? Everyone makes a great point of the hysteria about "net neutrality" and internet privacy, see all the issues taken with the National Security Agency alone, so why would this be any different? Let us not forget the man has been called "one of the most transparent administrations in history" and has complied with all the requests for information.
The Donald Trump Jr. meeting, as we have come to learn was a set-up by his opposition in an attempt to trap him for having a meeting. I remind you that they were indeed there under entirely different pretenses that had nothing to do with intelligence gathering about their opponent. If that were untrue, the argument of collusion would have been proven outright. Donald Trump Jr. politely saw himself out the moment it turned that direction and this has been publicly validated; it was posted directly to Twitter even.
I am not going to point fingers at previous administration, because everyone rolls their eyes at it, but thus far? There is significantly less scandal here still compared to "scandal free" presidencies and ones that promised transparency and still have holdovers who refuse to honor it - to the point of ignoring court orders, repeatedly choosing to plead the fifth, decline to appear, or submit documents for Freedom of Information requests or investigative agency demands. That is suspicious to me. The President and his inner circle being completely tight-lipped? Not an ounce of shock down the spine here.
Look to the fake news parade and how many times they have jumped the metaphorical gun with believing they had proof on this investigation; no one knowing anything is for the better, because apparently, if they even so much as think they know something, they fire it off and hope they are right. That is not how an agency, federal or news, should be doing business.
@Xandrya
People do not find fulfillment by forcing it into themselves, they need work their own way into it. The same thing can be said with forced conversions of old - how many people truly admitted and surrendered themselves to their new faith, rather than play along so as to avoid torture or death? Few, I think.
As for finding a way to decouple from stress, as I said before, turn not to religion but to spirituality. There is nothing wrong with being a spiritual person and coming to find what you personally believe so long as you are not imposing it on others. It truly is for the better to feel it out for yourself and not turn to the institutions of man who claim to know about what "faith" is; you already feel a bitterness there it seems, correct me if I am wrong, but my advice is to honestly discover it for your own benefit. Provided you are not forcing anyone else to participate or doing any harm, I believe with good reason you might be pleasantly surprised.
Either way, I hope that offers some solace.
When ever does the current administration admit anything to their opposition? Look at the lengths they have gone to in order to prevent leaking. Everything they do behind the scenes is under absolute lock and key, utter secrecy, because anything they do - even going back to the moon - is somehow fuel for controversy and spite. As for having "Nothing to hide.", that seems to be the real issue, that they have nothing to hide. But this comes back around, do you enjoy people spying on you? Everyone makes a great point of the hysteria about "net neutrality" and internet privacy, see all the issues taken with the National Security Agency alone, so why would this be any different? Let us not forget the man has been called "one of the most transparent administrations in history" and has complied with all the requests for information.
The Donald Trump Jr. meeting, as we have come to learn was a set-up by his opposition in an attempt to trap him for having a meeting. I remind you that they were indeed there under entirely different pretenses that had nothing to do with intelligence gathering about their opponent. If that were untrue, the argument of collusion would have been proven outright. Donald Trump Jr. politely saw himself out the moment it turned that direction and this has been publicly validated; it was posted directly to Twitter even.
I am not going to point fingers at previous administration, because everyone rolls their eyes at it, but thus far? There is significantly less scandal here still compared to "scandal free" presidencies and ones that promised transparency and still have holdovers who refuse to honor it - to the point of ignoring court orders, repeatedly choosing to plead the fifth, decline to appear, or submit documents for Freedom of Information requests or investigative agency demands. That is suspicious to me. The President and his inner circle being completely tight-lipped? Not an ounce of shock down the spine here.
Look to the fake news parade and how many times they have jumped the metaphorical gun with believing they had proof on this investigation; no one knowing anything is for the better, because apparently, if they even so much as think they know something, they fire it off and hope they are right. That is not how an agency, federal or news, should be doing business.
@Xandrya
People do not find fulfillment by forcing it into themselves, they need work their own way into it. The same thing can be said with forced conversions of old - how many people truly admitted and surrendered themselves to their new faith, rather than play along so as to avoid torture or death? Few, I think.
As for finding a way to decouple from stress, as I said before, turn not to religion but to spirituality. There is nothing wrong with being a spiritual person and coming to find what you personally believe so long as you are not imposing it on others. It truly is for the better to feel it out for yourself and not turn to the institutions of man who claim to know about what "faith" is; you already feel a bitterness there it seems, correct me if I am wrong, but my advice is to honestly discover it for your own benefit. Provided you are not forcing anyone else to participate or doing any harm, I believe with good reason you might be pleasantly surprised.
Either way, I hope that offers some solace.
A thing of action and reaction rather than any amount of thought, the elf's hands worked hastily and precisely to formulate a loop, then tell, then more, then and with continued swiftness, wrangle an arm then another. It was not her own doing of course, the great black cat weighed down upon the man and soon another pair of working hands set in against him. Both to her surprise and lack thereof, it turned out to be the hunter-woman, whose sword just moments before roared to life with magic.
At such a point however, as she leaned in against the man's armor and quite literally forced his hand until he gave and allowed the chance to slip his bonds over, a group more of men arrived, all of who were clearly unfriendly with weapons drawn and aimed. Regularly this would have been to be expected, but what convinced her this was as much a threat as it appeared was the reaction of the rest of the ragtag wanderers; not only did they recognize the man as a threat, some member of a bandit throng, they immediately went to arms to do something about it. That was good enough reason as anything else to subdue or kill the armed would-be ambushers.
Tightening the knot, she continued her work, with the aid of man - woman specifically - and beast. When she looked to the cat however, an unspoken word gave him the knowledge he needed; do whatever he needed to do to keep the enemy at bay. Swords, arrows, knives, daggers and the like were a threat, but the claws and teeth of a frenzied jaguar in the moonlit wood? Much more frightening, especially given any ounce of weakness was going to be exploited by the animal. All they had to do was finish their work with the bandit...
@Guardian Angel Haruki@JBRam2002@Pennydumb123@rush99999@ihinka@Cu Chulainn@0 Azzy 0
At such a point however, as she leaned in against the man's armor and quite literally forced his hand until he gave and allowed the chance to slip his bonds over, a group more of men arrived, all of who were clearly unfriendly with weapons drawn and aimed. Regularly this would have been to be expected, but what convinced her this was as much a threat as it appeared was the reaction of the rest of the ragtag wanderers; not only did they recognize the man as a threat, some member of a bandit throng, they immediately went to arms to do something about it. That was good enough reason as anything else to subdue or kill the armed would-be ambushers.
Tightening the knot, she continued her work, with the aid of man - woman specifically - and beast. When she looked to the cat however, an unspoken word gave him the knowledge he needed; do whatever he needed to do to keep the enemy at bay. Swords, arrows, knives, daggers and the like were a threat, but the claws and teeth of a frenzied jaguar in the moonlit wood? Much more frightening, especially given any ounce of weakness was going to be exploited by the animal. All they had to do was finish their work with the bandit...
@Guardian Angel Haruki@JBRam2002@Pennydumb123@rush99999@ihinka@Cu Chulainn@0 Azzy 0
Elven bandits? No, no, you have it all wrong, wood elves do not rob people, they just kill them for trespassing, hunting the wildlife, or playing with the rare flowers. That or the hunt has gone poorly and some of the more animalistic druids are peckish. Gold isn't as valuable as you might think it is.
I have to ask in all seriousness, especially with the light of all the mounting proof that there is no evidence of collusion and the media giants that be admitting much of it was drummed up for attention and sales, as well as revenge against a man they hate, does anyone sincerely believe there is wrong doing here anymore? Every "Ah-ha!" moment at this point has been an absolute and complete nothing. On the contrary, this investigation has inadvertently revealed more corruption and falsification of their own isle than anything legitimately criminal or questionable on behalf of the President or his prior campaign.
© 2007-2026