Originally Posted by
John Snowstorm
The actions of simians or rage in both cases are more or less irrelevant in these specific situations, its the actions of the accused that matter;
sanc saw the kd that noticed them with armies out on someone who was taking simians to war and they waved
bio saw the kd that noticed them with armies out on someone who was taking rage to war and the waved
(or made 7 hits - srsly you guys are still crying about 7 hits?)
from the positions of the monarchs of bio and sanc the situation was virtually identical, if you defend one while condemning the other you are a hypocrite, there is not much you can base your argument on.
a dragon? well I have been told numerous times that dragons weren't any sign of hostile, the first occassion was when I waved Dragons of Absalom and they started up MS coverage and started a dragon on us, after this Rage decided to wave us while armies still out and claimed that we weren't hostile or any such.
a hit? 1 unretalled hit? into fort? lol are we being serious right now? if these are the premises you base your argument then you have major congruity problems, it speaks of cognitive dissonance.
For the record, I condemn both the actions of sanctuary AND BiO and wouldn't have done what those kingdoms did in either circumstance, but you cannot defend one while condemning the other.