It is my impression that you believe this partly because the occasions where you would meet opposing views either discourage or outright forbid expressing “conflicts” or “politics”. People either refrain to show the “uncivil” side to you, or refrain to show at all out of not wanting to present with false smiles.
And yes, I am talking about myself, too.
I’m curious as to why you singled out Baracca. But I would be willing to venture that he made this comment because of what he experienced himself: His girlfriend is generally considered one of the more combative individuals on this forum, but turned out to be pleasant in person.
And while you phrase this as an “impression”, it’s a short step away from doing the same defining-of-others that you accuse Aria Jenneth of frequently doing to you.
I wouldn’t worry too much about it, Astaire, though I thank you for the support. Let’s just say that the entire reason I don’t personally speak much here is because I’m not stupid, and the people who’ve paid for my defense in the past have always been my friends, never me. So I’m perfectly fine letting Elsebeth say whatever she’d like about me, there’s no defense that doesn’t put someone else on the firing line and I can take it.
Leave it to the Amarrian to give the humble brag about sacrifice for little reason.
I suppose that’s one way of interpreting it. But there’s a fair bit of context missing, personality-wise.
At the risk of making a borderline dad-joke…
…maybe you should meet him in person.
That would be like antimatter meeting a hull of a ship. Probably wouldn’t end well.
I’m willing to try, and I’m sure if it doesn’t end well most people will say I deserved it. So if you see me around, feel free, we’ll set up some time to talk.
Ha, guess we will see.
I am putting this here for someone who asked:
This <sup>produces</sup> superscript.
This <sub>produces</sub> subscript.
This <sup><sub>JUST</sub></sup> gets fun. 
I spoke of his personal experience because he did. That’s all there is to it.
I have to admit, it was quite fun to use footnotes. However…
I intended my post to read as ‘don’t expect an answer so don’t bother’ in order to avoid the thread getting clogged.
I appear to have only achieved what I set out to avoid, for which I apologise.
A bit of unclarity there, Directrix, and I apologize for that. However, as you say: House Cerra’s holding has not come under attack from Tribal forces, and so Commander Kim’s exhortation against us cannot refer to that holding. Diana is, after all, intelligent and honorable. I do not think she would accuse us of attacking innocent civilians without evidence, and so believe she must have been referring to other systems.
That said, you are correct that that is not the correct thread for addressing that issue. Again, my apologies.
Good. The more you can avoid emulating that faithless fool, the better for you.
This may come as a shock to you, but there is a massive difference between pedantry and simply saying ‘this person is making an accusation. They got to choose the words they used, and what accusation they were making. How about we believe they’re not complete morons, and used the words they intended to use, rather than come up with a whole host of denials that all come down to accusing them of being so stupid that they used exactly the wrong terms’.
If, for example, I accuse Harkon of being a “cat burglar”, rather than just ‘a thief’, then I’m indicating a specific type of activity, and a specific method for carrying that activity out: illegal entry, but through stealth and finesse, not brute force. I’m not going to use that term if, for example, he’d come up to me, put a gun to my back, and said ‘gimme your wallet’. If I do, well, I’m dumb.
Now, let’s say Lady Cerra hadn’t just said ‘sleeper agent’, but had gone on to say that the putative agent had arrived at the Holding after Harkon’s statement about ‘unleashing operatives’ in Huola. If I’d gone and taken her to task about how that describes an infiltrator, rather than a sleeper agent, that would be pedantry. Instead, I’m simply taking her at her word, and trusting her and her security forces to know which freaking term they wanted to use.
Her. Not you. Are you a mind-reader? Do you have specific evidence to show that she didn’t mean that word? Or are you just knee-jerking a defense of her because you like her for taking in the refugees? I would think that, as someone interested in their well-being, you’d have an interest in seeing her evidence, in getting hard proof that she didn’t just pick one of them and murder him as a warning to U’K to not even try to get someone into her Holding.
So: Do you? Or are you simply taking her at her word? If it were me, and I felt a responsibiity to those people, I would sure as hell be making damned sure not a single one of them gets shot and used for propaganda without a cubic kilometer of hard evidence.
And for the record? This is what pedantry looks like. Disputing a third-party’s insistence of ‘she totally didn’t mean the thing she actually said’ when she herself has not made any statement to that effect? That isn’t. That’s just calling you an apologist idiot.
Idiot.
Yawn.
Commander;
As I have already indicated, I consider you an intelligent and honorable woman, and someone whom I do not think would be leveling accusations without evidence. At this time, neither Lady Cerra, nor those speaking on her behalf from LUMEN, have made any claims of Matari involvement.
House Sarum has made such an accusation, but again, has provided no evidence. Other reports have surfaced indicating the attack originates with an Amarr faction. Meanwhile, House Sarum has undertaken illegal slaving operations against foreign nationals living in pre-existing settlements on what was at the time an Amarr-occupied Republic world.
Again, as I indicated above, I consider you an honorable and intelligent person. I do not think you would intentionally stoop to such unfounded and libelous accusations with absolutely no evidence, nor did I believe you would blindly accept the word of war criminals without waiting for the results of the investigation LUMEN leadership has indicated is underway.
If I am wrong about that, then of course, I apologize for my error.
A man was sentenced to death. That’s, basically, necessary and sufficient proof.
And if you believe that was wrong, you should appeal to Lady Cerra’s court. Until then, I’ll consider it as a fact on a basis of being a judical decision.
Besides that Mr. Thorson himself made a public announcement of an operation that could be considered as nothing but primitive terrorism:
So, Else? This might sound foul to you coming from me, but I’d love to see a detailed Republic discussion on “fundamental human rights.”
Those of us in the State, especially, are kind of brought up looking at these words in maybe kind of a similar way to how Republic Matari might be brought up to look at the Amarrian god. In a way, they’re very familiar, so much that it might be hard for me to think about them fairly. I’d love to see a more ambivalent view.
Even if there’s no real conclusion and it’s just sort of your musings, it’d be really neat to see.
It’s not a concept I’ve used much except in communication with foreigners, so I am not sure I can answer this one myself.
The closest concept that I can think of is basic decency, but that is more like any person’s obligation to treat others without causing undue suffering, than any person’s right to be treated that way. Even if the end result is the same, the concept is not.
Hm. If you’re saying it’s duty-based, rather than rights-based (how a person should behave rather than what a person’s entitled to), then that would be maybe similar to how it’s seen in the State and Empire.
Does that seem right?
“Duty” to me implies a loyalty to someone from which it would stem so not quite, but close enough I guess?