597 réponses à ce sujet

[Fallstar]

The plan would not have worked. Loghain knew the horde was too large for them to defeat. He was the one who wanted Cailan to wait for reinforcements from Eamon. But Cailan didn't want Eamon to steal the glory, or words to that effect.

Cailan was determined to fight the horde with his current force. At the end of the day, Cailan was the king and Loghain should have followed the chain of command. What he did was treason. But in doing so he saved a significant number of troops from certain death, troops who then fought at Denerim later. It's not a black and white case, and you can understand why he did what he did.

On paper, Loghain was the best candidate to assume the regency during a blight. An experienced military commander, a blood relation to the queen, the final remaining teyrn, and someone who is well respected and liked by the people of Ferelden. For various reasons he made quite a mess of things as regent, but no one else was better suited to take the regency than he was, so it's understandable why he did that too. His action after becoming regent were questionable, but he was right to take the position.

The Arishok was a comparable antagonist to Loghain in my opinion. I found him very interesting, and although the Qun is entirely alien, by the end of Act 2 I somewhat sympathized with the Arishok and understood why he did what he did. I hope we can have another antagonist of that calibre in DA3, and nothing like Meredith/Orsino.

Modifié par DuskWarden, 05 janvier 2013 - 02:56 .

[Pzykozis]

DuskWarden wrote...

The plan would not have worked. Loghain knew the horde was too large for them to defeat. He was the one who wanted Cailan to wait for reinforcements from Eamon. But Cailan didn't want Eamon to steal the glory, or words to that effect.

Cailan was determined to fight the horde with his current force. At the end of the day, Cailan was the king and Loghain should have followed the chain of command. What he did was treason. But in doing so he saved a significant number of troops from certain death, troops who then fought at Denerim later. It's not a black and white case, and you can understand why he did what he did.

On paper, Loghain was the best candidate to assume the regency during a blight. An experienced military commander, a blood relation to the queen, the final remaining teyrn, and someone who is well respected and liked by the people of Ferelden. For various reasons he made quite a mess of things as regent, but no one else was better suited to take the regency than he was, so it's understandable why he did that too. His action after becoming regent were questionable, but he was right to take the position.

The Arishok was a comparable antagonist to Loghain in my opinion. I found him very interesting, and although the Qun is entirely alien, by the end of Act 2 I somewhat sympathized with the Arishok and understood why he did what he did. I hope we can have another antagonist of that calibre in DA3, and nothing like Meredith/Orsino.

Cailan was content to wait for orlesian support so that doesn't seem to be the case at all  But they couldn't really just wait anyway the battle happens at the place the army is camped where they chose a pass which should effectively negate any numerical advantage the darkspawn had infact Ostagar kinda mirrors Thermopylae but without the whole logically using the terrain, 'cause for some reason the army just kinda dies in a couple of hours. I guess noone uses shield walls in thedas or anything. Though I'd like to just rule that whole scene off as being rule of cool or something.

The Arishok was so much better than Loghain for me, though he likewise suffers from silly behaviour disorder. I dunno whether its in the water wherein the inhabitants of Thedas are blinded to casaulity or what.

[Ulicus]

Pzykozis wrote...

Cailan was content to wait for orlesian support so that doesn't seem to be the case at all

Not so. Cailan wanted a battle, then and there, and used the threat of waiting for Orlesian support to goad Loghain into backing him.

From what I recall, the conversation you walk in during the meeting on can be boiled down to:

Loghain: This is a stupid idea, especially you fighting on the front lines.
Cailan: Well I guess we should wait for the Orlesian reinforcements, then.
Loghain: WE DON'T NEED ORLESIANS RARRGHH.
Cailan: Then we'll have to make do with what we've got, won't we? Checkmate.

(WTTE)

Additionally, when you first arrive at Ostagar, Duncan reveals he's frustrated that the King is outright refusing to wait for the Grey Warden reinforcements from Orlais.

PC: What would you have him do?
Duncan: Wait for reinforcements, the Grey Wardens of Orlais blah blah.

[74 Wrex]

Who do you guys think is a bigger idiot/******
Loghain or Cailan

[Gandalf-the-Fabulous]

Hawke_12 wrote...

TJPags wrote...

This thread, as all Loghain threads so, amuses me.

However, I'm all out of desire to argue about him, so I'll leave it to Plaintiff, In Exile and others, who are doing an admirable job pointing out what is actually shown IN THE GAME.

Same could be said about The Ethernal Writer Redux, Chewin3, Addai67 and several other people here are doing an excellent job in pointing out what is actually show in the game.

And FYI almost everyone is speculating one or the other to strengthen their opinion. 

That is because to put Loghain's actions in such a context that makes any sense at all requires a great deal of speculation, and even then there is still a lot of evidence to contradict this speculation give what we are supposed to believe about the character.

Their whole argument is based purely on speculation and not what is actually shown in the game, tell me where it is shown that the treasury is in so much trouble that slavery is the only option, tell me where it is shown that Loghain plans to mount a rescue for the elves he himself sold into slavery, tell me where it is shown that Eamon is such an unstable emotional wreck that he is unable to view Loghain's actions rationally and blindly blames Loghain for Cailan's death, in fact that last peice of speculation is indisputably proven wrong not by mere speculation but what is actually shown in game by way of Connor's death, so no they really arent doing an excellent job of pointing out what is shown in game.

To argue anything other than "Loghain was poorly written" requires a great deal of speculation but considering that those arguing in Loghain's favor dont want to consider that a possibility we too are left to speculate on Loghain's actions leading to a conclusion that either clearly shows Loghain as a man who is NOT the man we are supposed to believe he is or a conclusion that is contradicted by several other pieces of evidence in game.



To point out the Redcliffe example again since everyone conveniently ignored it, to believe that Loghain's actions of poisoning Eamon somehow make sense we need to come to one of the following conclusions

A) Eamon is too emotionally unstable to view Loghain's actions logically and would have started a civil war had he not been poisoned, even though the Warden kills his son and he is totally fine with it.

Eamon is greedy and would use the tragedy to start a civil war in order increase his standing and expand his power base within the country, even though the epilogue states that due to the popularity of Tegan in Redcliffe Eamon gave up his position and gave it to Tegan willingly.

C) Loghain is clearly not the genius and strategist he is made out to be as shown by the way he overreacted and put in motion an ill concieved plan to stop what he thought might happen and cover his own arse yet ended up only making things worse

D) Loghain planned to get the King killed and had planned to poison Eamon because he knew Eamon would be a major obstacle in his mad grab for power.

This is ignoring that Eamon diddnt even get a chance to accuse Loghain which suggests that Loghain was either pretty damn quick to poison Eamon before heading back to Denerim or he had already hired an agent to perform the deed before the battle at Ostagar suggesting that the poisoning was planned before the King fell.

Personally I would have argued "poor and illogical writing in order to have Loghain fill the role of antagonist" but since that is off the table these are the only logical conclusions I can come to within the context of the game yet each one is contradicted by the things we are shown or told about in game.

[Pzykozis]

Ulicus wrote...

Pzykozis wrote...

Cailan was content to wait for orlesian support so that doesn't seem to be the case at all

Not so. Cailan wanted a battle, then and there, and used the threat of waiting for Orlesian support to goad Loghain into backing him.

From what I recall, the conversation you walk in during the meeting on can be boiled down to:

Loghain: This is a stupid idea, especially you fighting on the front lines.
Cailan: Well I guess we should wait for the Orlesian reinforcements, then.
Loghain: WE DON'T NEED ORLESIANS RARRGHH.
Cailan: Then we'll have to make do with what we've got, won't we? Checkmate.

(WTTE)

Additionally, when you first arrive at Ostagar, Duncan reveals he's frustrated that the King is outright refusing to wait for the Grey Warden reinforcements from Orlais.

PC: What would you have him do?
Duncan: Wait for reinforcements, the Grey Wardens of Orlais blah blah.

Fair enough my bad, though I think the point about their inability to 'wait' still stands to be honest. Unless they tactically withdrew from the south there was no ability to wait. Or their ability to wait wasn't really conveyed at all.

[TJPags]

Hawke_12 wrote...

TJPags wrote...

This thread, as all Loghain threads so, amuses me.

However, I'm all out of desire to argue about him, so I'll leave it to Plaintiff, In Exile and others, who are doing an admirable job pointing out what is actually shown IN THE GAME.

Same could be said about The Ethernal Writer Redux, Chewin3, Addai67 and several other people here are doing an excellent job in pointing out what is actually show in the game.

And FYI almost everyone is speculating one or the other to strengthen their opinion. 

See, no.

What I see - and I've been in these Loghain threads many times - is his supporters using information NOT in the game to support their position. 

Such as, Loghain never intended Eamon to die - that comes from something Gaider said.

Such as, Maric told him never to save one man at the cost of the nation.  Comes from The Stolen Throne.

Such as, the reason behind Loghains hatred of Wardens - comes from The Calling.

I could go on.  I won't.

In the greater discussion of Loghain, these things may have relevance.  In the context of what we see IN GAME, however, they do not and can not, because they are not pieces of information we know, or can even infer, based on what is in game.

[In Exile]

DuskWarden wrote...
Cailan was determined to fight the horde with his current force. At the end of the day, Cailan was the king and Loghain should have followed the chain of command. What he did was treason. But in doing so he saved a significant number of troops from certain death, troops who then fought at Denerim later. It's not a black and white case, and you can understand why he did what he did.

The plan was still stupid. It a congregation of stupid that seemed to exist due to the role of each character. Cailan was a glory hunter and a moron - wanting to engage the darkspawn there was not very bright, without more forces. Duncan was especially stupid, since he agreed to put the only thing that could end a blight, his Grey Wardens, into the vanguard where the darkspawn could kill them all without even getting close to the archdemon.

And Loghain was an idiot since the plan was apparently to have a force charge the superior darkspawn army on foot while his forces stand around somewhere going "Durr" waiting to be flanked.

On paper, Loghain was the best candidate to assume the regency during a blight.

On paper, there's no need for a Regent. Anora is Queen. She's an adult Queen, and she's (ostensibly) ruled competently. Loghain is a Teyrn, and respected.

An experienced military commander, a blood relation to the queen, the final remaining teyrn, and someone who is well respected and liked by the people of Ferelden. For various reasons he made quite a mess of things as regent, but no one else was better suited to take the regency than he was, so it's understandable why he did that too. His action after becoming regent were questionable, but he was right to take the position.

No, he was completely wrong. It makes no sense to become Teyrn - in fact, it is absolutely the worst possible thing he can, do and apparently his first plan is to try to free the Circle (Exhalted March on Ferelden, anyone?) by supporting a rebellion and attempting to poison Eamon.

[The Hierophant]

TJPags wrote...

Hawke_12 wrote...

TJPags wrote...

This thread, as all Loghain threads so, amuses me.

However, I'm all out of desire to argue about him, so I'll leave it to Plaintiff, In Exile and others, who are doing an admirable job pointing out what is actually shown IN THE GAME.

Same could be said about The Ethernal Writer Redux, Chewin3, Addai67 and several other people here are doing an excellent job in pointing out what is actually show in the game.

And FYI almost everyone is speculating one or the other to strengthen their opinion. 

See, no.

What I see - and I've been in these Loghain threads many times - is his supporters using information NOT in the game to support their position. 

Such as, Loghain never intended Eamon to die - that comes from something Gaider said.

Such as, Maric told him never to save one man at the cost of the nation.  Comes from The Stolen Throne.

Such as, the reason behind Loghains hatred of Wardens - comes from The Calling.

I could go on.  I won't.

In the greater discussion of Loghain, these things may have relevance.  In the context of what we see IN GAME, however, they do not and can not, because they are not pieces of information we know, or can even infer, based on what is in game.

Basically your stance is that the only information you think is relevant to forming an opinion of Loghain is what's only shown in the game regardless of what DG, and crew states or writes otherwise.

Why add rules now to a cluster**** debate when the op asked for an antagonist you could potentially spare regrdless of your reasons for doing so?

[TJPags]

The Hierophant wrote...

Basically your stance is that the only information you think is relevant to forming an opinion of Loghain is what's only shown in the game regardless of what DG, and crew states or writes otherwise.

Why add rules now to a cluster**** debate when the op asked for an antagonist you could potentially spare regrdless of your reasons for doing so?

Yes, it is my stance.  What the writers intended matters very little if it's not given to you in the game.

But to go to the OP, Loghain had the potential to be a character such as the OP wants.  It wasn't carried out well, unfortunately.  Given that, and the comic idiocy of Meredith and Orsino (for other reasons, but still) I'm not sure BW can do what is asked.

If they can, though, I'd certainly like it.

[LobselVith8]

In Exile wrote...

No, he was completely wrong. It makes no sense to become Teyrn - in fact, it is absolutely the worst possible thing he can, do and apparently his first plan is to try to free the Circle (Exhalted March on Ferelden, anyone?) by supporting a rebellion and attempting to poison Eamon.

I assume you meant 'Regent' instead of 'Teyrn'?

Also, King Alistair and Queen Anora can publicly support the Magi Boon, regardless of the opinion on it held by some pro-templar posters. However, it seems the bargain was for Loghain to get the Circle of Ferelden "more freedoms" as opposed to outright emancipating the Circle (like the Hero of Ferelden can ask for).

[The Hierophant]

TJPags wrote...

The Hierophant wrote...

Basically your stance is that the only information you think is relevant to forming an opinion of Loghain is what's only shown in the game regardless of what DG, and crew states or writes otherwise.

Why add rules now to a cluster**** debate when the op asked for an antagonist you could potentially spare regrdless of your reasons for doing so?

Yes, it is my stance.  What the writers intended matters very little if it's not given to you in the game.

But to go to the OP, Loghain had the potential to be a character such as the OP wants.  It wasn't carried out well, unfortunately.  Given that, and the comic idiocy of Meredith and Orsino (for other reasons, but still) I'm not sure BW can do what is asked.

If they can, though, I'd certainly like it.

True at the bolded, but sadly don't forget ME3's Illusive Man either. 

Modifié par The Hierophant, 05 janvier 2013 - 08:48 .

[In Exile]

LobselVith8 wrote...
I assume you meant 'Regent' instead of 'Teyrn'?

Yes, that was a total typo!

Also, King Alistair and Queen Anora can publicly support the Magi Boon, regardless of the opinion on it held by some pro-templar posters. 

They certainly can - but even in DA:O alone, there's a lot of justification for A/A to do this: namely that the mages just bled and died to stop a Blight, and the very hero who saved all of Ferelden from that Blight was a mage him(her)self.

At that point in DA:O, there's quite a lot more force in doing so.

However, it seems the bargain was for Loghain to get the Circle of Ferelden "more freedoms" as opposed to outright emancipating the Circle (like the Hero of Ferelden can ask for).

Whatever Loghain said he wanted to do, the blood mages you run across (and the conversations about what Uldred did) all suggest that the plan was freedom, not a looser leash.

[Dabrikishaw]

74 Wrex wrote...

Who do you guys think is a bigger idiot/******
Loghain or Cailan

Cailan's the bigger idiot
Loghain's the bigger ******

[shepard1038]

It seems Cailan forgot he has a fortress and archers and Loghain forgot to secure the perimeter. Hence the big hole under the tower of Ishal and the reason why the lighting of the beacon was delayed.

[Addai]

Few points of factual clarification since I just played the Howe/ alienage quests again.

Riordan says there are two dozen divisions of cavalry with the Wardens, not a dozen as I stated earlier. He also says he was sent to find out why Cailan hadn't sent any messages after Ostagar- not because they knew it was a Blight.

Shianni says half the elves the Tevinters take are healthy, meaning half of them are sick and they obviously aren't concerned about that. But, the spell they talk about the Tevinters using is supposed to be preventive and not work if you're already sick, so I retract my supposition that they're healing people in the alienage as it's apparent they aren't.

[TEWR]

tell me where it is shown that Loghain plans to mount a rescue for the elves he himself sold into slavery

You realize when I said that I said "I like to imagine he would do that"? I never said "Yup, he's going to do that."

The key word there is imagine. I never once claimed it was even hinted at in game. If you would actually read posts instead of going "This is too long to read so I'm going to be a lazy ****. I'm right and you're wrong" you might actually make a decent counterpoint.

But that'd be too much like work for you. Why try and participate in a discussion when you're so cemented in your belief that anyone else who holds a different viewpoint is an idiot?

tell me where it is shown that the treasury is in so much trouble that slavery is the only option

Ser Cauthrien. And you can see Howe's men stealing from the treasury for him.

tell me where it is shown that Eamon is such an unstable emotional wreck that he is unable to view Loghain's actions rationally and blindly blames Loghain for Cailan's death

Considering he does just that after waking up...

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 06 janvier 2013 - 01:31 .

[TEWR]

TJPags wrote...

Such as, Loghain never intended Eamon to die - that comes from something Gaider said

It's there very subtly, IIRC. IIRC, the Demon says that it's the only thing keeping Eamon alive and if she dies, he dies as well. But if you kill it, Eamon doesn't die.

Such as, Maric told him never to save one man at the cost of the nation. Comes from The Stolen Throne.

So? Why wouldn't that be known to say... a Human Noble whose father fought with Maric and has interacted with Loghain many times -- as they're both Teyrns and go to the Landsmeet.

It's a historical part of the world and is applicable.

Such as, the reason behind Loghains hatred of Wardens - comes from The Calling.

Wrong. His hatred of the Wardens can be traced back to a larger part of the world. Orlais and the Chantry using the Wardens and Blights as a pretense to "aid" other nations and then never leave. They only signed a promise of neutrality during the Third Blight.

Then, there's Sophia Dryden -- a Warden that fought against the king. Justified as her rebellion was, all anyone knew was that the Wardens rebelled against the king.

[Gandalf-the-Fabulous]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

The key word there is imagine.

No argument there, in fact pretty much most of your points have been based on little more than imagination so tell us something we dont know.

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

tell me where it is shown that Eamon is such an unstable emotional wreck that he is unable to view Loghain's actions rationally and blindly blames Loghain for Cailan's death

Considering he does just that after waking up...

You do know Loghain sent a man to poison him right? If that doesnt rightfully raise suspicions that Loghain is up to something and isnt being as forthcomming with the truth as he should be then I dont know what will.

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

If you would actually read posts instead of going "This is too long to read so I'm going to be a lazy ****. I'm right and you're wrong" you might actually make a decent counterpoint.

But that'd be too much like work for you. Why try and participate in a discussion when you're so cemented in your belief that anyone else who holds a different viewpoint is an idiot?

Oh but I am reading posts which is more than I can say for you, I am all up for a civil conversation but then that requires you to be civil as well, problem is I dont see much merit in many of the points you put forward and when you accuse me of "ignoring all your indisputable evidence" I have no idea what this "indisputable evidence" is. When I ask for clarification you or one of your cronies refuse and throw out a childish statement like "You just ignore our evidence so I wont tell you what it is, were right your wrong", I am all up for a civil discussion but how is that possible when you and your cronies act like children?

Ill give you one more chance, if you seriously want to have a civil discussion then please by all means show me all this "indisputable evidence" you are talking about, otherwise if you are going to act like a child I will treat you like one.

[Dabrikishaw]

Oh ****, it's on.

[TEWR]

Oh but I am reading posts which is more than I can say for you, I am all up for a civil conversation but then that requires you to be civil as well

Listen kiddo, I dont care who you think you are to make the absurd assumptions that you did but I think I know what I said better than you do so get off your high horse and start arguing what has been said and not what you think has been said, its not my fault that you lack basic reading comprehension skills and blew my quote out to be something it isnt.

Yeah, you get points for civility alright when you were the one who started throwing around insults in the first place. Not to mention your condescending attitude by calling me "kiddo".

No argument there, in fact pretty much most of your points have been based on little more than imagination so tell us something we dont know.

Try reading it. Are you intentionally being obtuse? I have to think you are, considering your rebuttal to my evidence was:

Honestly I dont really care, your whole argument is based on your Warden alone having the realization that Ostagar is unwinnable the moment the darkspawn blood hits his tounge which is perhaps an hour before the battle?

Which tells me you are incapable of admitting you're wrong, because you don't even want to read what I provide.

No, I didn't come to the realization Ostagar couldn't be won before the battle had even started. I came to that realization during the battle itself, after adding up everything I've seen/heard both before and during the battle.

I can overhear soldiers reporting on scouting bands routinely going missing, reporting on new types of Darkspawn that are ten feet tall which is analogous to Golems for the Dwarves, find out Teyrn Loghain is ignorant on Ostagar's layout -- a failing on Bioware's part for it contradicts Loghain's established character -- and so many other ****ing things.

Hell, I provided my evidence that supported why Ostagar can be deduced to be an unwinnable battle using what troops were there, but you didn't want to address it. You just said you "didn't care".

I could also accuse you of convieniently ignoring scraps of information such as the fact that all the previous battles had been going so well that nobody actually believes that it is a blight

Irrelevant to what I can see from the bridge -- the extent of the horde -- and irrelevant to the nature of the battle the Warden takes part in.

Hell, any time someone says something was discussed previously, your first instinct is to go "You do my work for me, I can't be bothered to go back and see if I was wrong".

What's more, the entire point of all of this was to establish that you can learn enough at Ostagar to establish -- at the very least -- that it couldn't have been won at all, regardless of Origin. Dwarf Nobles just get access to more information because of what they deal with in the Origin story.

Obviously, the person who lacks reading comprehension isn't me.

Ill give you one more chance, if you seriously want to have a civil discussion then please by all means show me all this "indisputable evidence" you are talking about, otherwise if you are going to act like a child I will treat you like one.

I have. It's on the preceding pages. You refused to read it, saying "Honestly I don't care".

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 06 janvier 2013 - 02:52 .

[JimboGee]

The Hierophant wrote...

Agreed but so long as he's voiced by Jonathan Frakes.

At what point would any charcter need to say "Red Alert Sheilds up" Thats all he basically ever said.

[TEWR]

The Hierophant wrote...

Why add rules now to a cluster**** debate when the op asked for an antagonist you could potentially spare regrdless of your reasons for doing so?

Since I got dragged into the Loghain debates, might as well give an answer to the OP's question.

Yes, I'd like another Loghain-esque character. Not quite like him, but certainly a driving antagonist in the story that feels well fleshed out and whom I can understand -- even if I can't particularly agree with him, like the Joker from the Dark Knight.

The Joker was given his due, as opposed to how DAII treated insanity.

[The Hierophant]

JimboGee wrote...

The Hierophant wrote...

Agreed but so long as he's voiced by Jonathan Frakes.

At what point would any charcter need to say "Red Alert Shields up" Thats all he basically ever said.

Good times, but there's also this cool guy that he voiced.

The Ethereal Writer Redux...

Since I got dragged into the Loghain debates, might as well give an answer to the OP's question. Yes, I'd like another Loghain-esque character. Not quite like him, but certainly a driving antagonist in the story that feels well fleshed out and whom I can understand -- even if I can't particularly agree with him, like the Joker from the Dark Knight. The Joker was given his due, as opposed to how DAII treated insanity.

Agreed, also add that they're not brainwashed by space Cthulhu, a voodoo statue, or sharing a consciousness with a spirit that's in serious need of anger management classes.

Modifié par The Hierophant, 06 janvier 2013 - 03:18 .

[Gandalf-the-Fabulous]

See more bile, not that it wasnt unexpected, I gave you a chance to clarify what you are talking about but it seems you are content to just throw out more insults rather than draw attention to the fact that all your previous arguments have no real merit. I am not going to re-read what I have already read multiple times on the chance that I find what it is you believe is irrefuatable evidence.

You cant claim that I am ignoring your points when you refuse to tell me what they are.

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Oh but I am reading posts which is more than I can say for you, I am all up for a civil conversation but then that requires you to be civil as well

Listen kiddo, I dont care who you think you are to make the absurd assumptions that you did but I think I know what I said better than you do so get off your high horse and start arguing what has been said and not what you think has been said, its not my fault that you lack basic reading comprehension skills and blew my quote out to be something it isnt.

Yeah, you get points for civility alright when you were the one who started throwing around insults in the first place. Not to mention your condescending attitude by calling me "kiddo".

Since you still dont get it let me spell it out for you, we can disagree on the quality of Loghain's writing all we want but when you try to tell me I said something I clearly diddnt and try to claim you know what I said better than I do thats when it gets ugly. I even tried to politely claify my words to you yet you still stubbornly held onto the belief that you know what I said better than I do because there is no way you could have misinterpreted my words because you are never wrong, thats just plain rude. Throw in your hypocracy when you got upset when you thought I was twisting your words even though I had far more cause to think you were using metagame knowledge to prove your character's belief that the battle was unwinnable than you ever did to think I was saying "duh Loghain should try to commit suicide by retake Lothering from the Darkspawn". That being said I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt which is far more than you were willing to do for me.

As you can see it is not I who is incapable of admitting I am wrong but yourself.

Considering this conversation has devolved into little more than mud slinging I dont see any real reason to continue. Good day TEWR, may all your future arguments fare better than this one.

Modifié par Gandalf-the-Fabulous, 06 janvier 2013 - 03:31 .