Posted by Zix on September 11, 2000 at 07:19:31:
In Reply to: What truely amazes me about this... posted by Shokai(IMM) on September 10, 2000 at 23:04:32:
>
> Now, (In case you don't know) I'm not a battle or arbiter imm....and typically don't play either rager or arbie...just doesn't fit the roles I normally come up with. But unless I'm mistaken, I'm sure there was a mage or 5 somewhere in range....and last time I checked Fuath was a warrior. Now, I add things up...and it seems to me that the Battle Bully Syndrome has shown back up...and unless someone takes the reigns over, I predict (in a month or so) people wondering where the hell all the ragers are. Since everytime I've seen Battle and Arbiters clash...all the lowbie ragers end up with a pk hole of nasty proportions. But I'm digressing here...
> What amazes me, is that the rager in this log went directly for a warrior...cabal relations aside, doesn't that strike anyone else as a bit hinky? I mean c'mon...how the hell are you going to rid the world of magic if you start killing all the warriors...warriors who if you're PR was a little better..could convieably be on your side of the whole war against magic.
> Just something I noticed and felt like posting about. I would like to be on the record as saying that if ragers and arbies want to have wars, that's skippy...this was just an observation, nothing more.
>
> "Level edge, backs against the ledge
> no knives, the stone hard eyes
> without the longing
> or fear that it would disappear
> they clung on,
> nurturing never-ending obsessions on the table"
> - Skinny Puppy