I don't know about everybody else but Spike is the best partner for Buffy yet.

[DeadlyDuo]

I saw your caveat, but by bringing up the race issue you ARE making some sort of equivalency and its a false one. There is no such a thing as vampire prejudice on the show inregards to humans and Spike has not been shown to be 'sensitive' to his vampire nature. He's proud that he's a vampire.

You can be proud of what you are and still encounter insults because of it. "Bat boy" and "Save your lack of breath" are direct jabs about Spike's vampirism. It's possible Faith said those things deliberately in order to redirect Spike's anger towards her thus provoking the physical fight. She can handle him whereas the others would struggle.

Firstly, Faith did actually let Spike speak for a good while and secondly she used multiple phases; 'turn it down a notch' and the like.
You can pick whichever you like to support your POV put she wasn't being bigoted and she wasn't picking a fight, that's the main thing. She was not asking to be hit.

Here's the part of the scene between Spike and Faith:

FAITH
Hey. Why don't you take it down a notch or two? The time for speech-giving is over, bat boy.

SPIKE
(crosses his arms) Oh, is that right?

FAITH
Yeah, that's right. Save your lack of breath.

SPIKE
(shrugs) All right. (punches Faith)

FAITH
You're pretty sweet on her, aren't you? (kicks Spike in the face) I think it's cute. (Spike punches Faith; she punches him back) They way she's got you whipped. (kicks Spike into the other room where he slides over the dining room table and onto the floor)

GILES
Enough!

Faith goes into the dining room after Spike and starts punching him in the face repeatedly. He kicks her off of him and leaps to his feet.

SPIKE
Finally got what you wanted, didn't you? (exchanges punches with Faith) Where is she?

FAITH
I don't know.


Faith tells Spike to "turn it down a notch or two" ONCE before she starts in with the "bat boy" and telling him "the time for speech giving is over". Spike crosses his arms and says " oh, is that right?" He is challenging her and he is displaying very negative body language. Faith then says "Yeah, that's right. Save your lack of breath." She's gone in with the jab about his vampirism again.

It is after that, that Spike punches her. Faith immediately then taunts him about his feelings for Buffy and hits him a lot more than he hits her. She wasn't just reacting to a situation, she was feeding it. She's not an idiot, she knew what she was doing.

Faith was the one who actually tried to deescalate that particular confrontation- nobody else did- and also went out after Buffy. That's a lot given that she is an outside in this instance.

Not really. She just didn't want the responsibility of leader. Faith wasn't exactly defending Buffy or trying to mediate between Buffy and everyone else, she said her piece against Buffy just like everyone else did.

Buffy left, of her own choice, because the choices she made and has been making.

Again, not really. She said that she couldn't stay and watch Faith lead them all into disaster (which she was right about) and Dawn told her "Then you can't stay here. Buffy, I love you, but you were right. We have to be together on this. You can't be a part of it. So I need you to leave. I'm sorry, but this is my house, too."

That's not really giving Buffy a choice.

Spike's 'deductions' are ill-informed and wrong on almost every level, as has previously been stated. It might not be rocket science but its clearly beyond his ability to comprehend.

SPIKE
So, uh, Buffy took some time off right in the middle of the apocalypse, and it was her decision?

XANDER
Well, we all decided.

SPIKE
Oh, yeah. You all decided. You sad, sad, ungrateful traitors. Who do you think you are?

WILLOW
We're her friends. We just want—

SPIKE
Oh, that's ballsy of you. You're her friends, and you betray her like this?


I'd say Spike is pretty spot on with his "deductions".

Or, to use less emotive language, the decided not to follow her on yet another suicide mission against an unbeatable foe they still knew nothing about. Hardly backstabbing since everything was out in the open. Buffy called the meeting, got defensive when people refused to 'fall into line', and then left because her pride wouldn't let her work with others.

Buffy was right though. Perhaps it's a failure in the writing where the audience is meant to see both points of view, but at the end of the day, Buffy was correct whilst the others were wrong.

Not really, Spike was getting himself more and more worked up as the scene goes along.

Which is why it's likely Faith deliberately said what she did in order to redirect his anger towards her.

Actually Faith did stand up for Buffy- she told the Potentials that Buffy was the one they wanted, their leader, that she was not.
She simply said that Buffy needed a break (true) but then Buffy started in on Faith and so it didn't last.
Go watch the scene again, Faith standing up for Buffy is there, but she wasn't going to get between Buffy and her friends/family, perhaps she thinks that she hadn't got the right given all that history.

Faith just didn't want the responsibility of leadership. She'd rather Buffy have that role and have to make the hard decisions.

Your characterization of both Faith (and even Kennedy) in those instances is deeply unfair.

No, my characterisation of Kennedy is quite accurate. Kennedy openly admits that she thought she'd get a bigger say with Faith in charge. In the scene directly after Buffy leaves and everybody is trying to talk at once, Xander says "You know, I'm thinking that everyone here shouldn't have a say" and Kennedy's response is "I just wonder if those of us who have been here longer should have more of a say."

Since Kennedy is the only one of the original potentials left, she clearly means herself. Given that Kennedy suggests that and then later openly admits that she thought she'd get a bigger say with Faith in charge, it very strongly points to Kennedy initiating the mutiny to serve her self-interest rather than the good of the team.

Everyone being reluctant to return to the vineyard is understandable (and it was bad timing on Buffy's part), but it is Kennedy who throws in the "Let's vote to have Faith in charge". The evidence just mounts up that Kennedy is a very horrible person who only cares about her self-interest.

To the Potentials, not to Giles and the others. In that scene in the kitchen everyone is pretty equal. Dawn, Willow and Giles are busily discussing the Bringer and what to do to get info. Then Faith lets Willow try and explain to Spike what happened, etc.

The scoobies have known Spike the longest, hence why the "bad news" would be better coming from one of them. Given that Giles was recently part of a plot to kill Spike, he was kind of out of the running so it was left to either Willow or Xander. Given that Xander and Spike didn't always see eye to eye, that kind of left Willow as the bearer of bad news.

I gotta say, for somebody who calls Riley abusive and counts the number of times he grabs Buffy, you seem pretty okay with Spike lashing out whenever he feels like it.

I call Riley controlling, he never quite crosses the threshold into abusive. Also the writers don't try to paint Spike as this wholesome guy Buffy should want to be with, unlike what they did with Riley.

Chill out.

You began the sarcasm, I was just matching you.

 

[thetopher]

You can be proud of what you are and still encounter insults because of it. "Bat boy" and "Save your lack of breath" are direct jabs about Spike's vampirism.

It's still a fairly odious comparison to use a racial slur example to justify a fictional condition- vampirism- when Spike has shown no sensitivity to it in the past.

In fact in this very scene he says about Andrew 'he's a breath of fresh air isn't he? Thank god I don't breathe.'

Yup, he's truly sensitive about his 'people'. 🙄

Faith tells Spike to "turn it down a notch or two" ONCE before she starts in with the "bat boy" and telling him "the time for speech giving is over".

And she never tells him to actually shut up, and yet people are wailing on that Spike was being 'silenced' and that therefore his only recourse was to punch somebody.

Word choice is significant. You're saying that the names matter but forget that Faith never says anything close to 'shut up'. 'Save your breath' and basically 'no more speeches' are mind even if Faith's tone is not.

It is after that, that Spike punches her. Faith immediately then taunts him about his feelings for Buffy and hits him a lot more than he hits her.

Actually after Spike hits her Faith pauses, takes it in and then fights back. He crossed the line and she took a moment to adjust, she doesn't immediately hit back.

What she says to him after he punches doesn't matter, he started it.

Not really. She just didn't want the responsibility of leader. Faith wasn't exactly defending Buffy

The motivations don't matter at all, the fact is that Faith DOES defend Buffy, its there in the scene.

Again, not really. She said that she couldn't stay and watch Faith lead them all into disaster (which she was right about)

Yeah, Buffy said she couldn't stay- ULTIMATUM- and then she was called on it and chose, instead of backing down from her ultimatum, to leave. Her choice.

I'd say Spike is pretty spot on with his "deductions".

Except he attacked Faith, the wrong target, so no, not at all.

Buffy was right though. Perhaps it's a failure in the writing

Bingo. Buffy's plan was right only because the script says so, it doesn't. She had no clue about anything and had no plan to beat Caleb. She just wanted to charge in again.

Faith just didn't want the responsibility of leadership. She'd rather Buffy have that role and have to make the hard decisions.

Probably correct although Faith- in the right circumstances- is quite capable of leading people (see Angel) but she didn't want the responsibility in this instance.
But she still stood up for Buffy in the scene. In fact in the previous episode she was the only one who backed Buffy's plan without question 'drop me in the hornet's nest, what the hell'.

No, my characterisation of Kennedy is quite accurate. Kennedy openly admits that she thought she'd get a bigger say with Faith in charge.

Completely irrelevant since you claimed that Kennedy was a bully in this scene and she isn't. She is perhaps bratty and entitled but she isn't aggressive and threatening. Spike is.

The scoobies have known Spike the longest, hence why the "bad news" would be better coming from one of them.

You ignore the first part where the group is acting well, like a group. Faith is letting them all figure stuff out, pretty much a team. Faith is not the leader of the Scoobies, just the potentials. It's an important distinction you're ignoring.

I call Riley controlling, he never quite crosses the threshold into abusive.

You've called Riley abusive in the past and yet valiantly defend a character who punches women., A lot.
It's interesting.

You began the sarcasm, I was just matching you.

No actually, I was just matching your condescension.

 

[Taake]

Ok, let's cool our heads and also, get back on topic. This has drifted too far into Spike vs Faith territory.

 

[DeadlyDuo]

It's still a fairly odious comparison to use a racial slur example to justify a fictional condition- vampirism- when Spike has shown no sensitivity to it in the past.

He complains to Anya about being seen as an evil, soulless "thing".

The closest comparison example I could think of for the point I was trying to make was what I used but I added the bit about how it's obviously not on the same level. Just because you want to ignore that bit and go with the "how dare you use that example" is on you.

In fact in this very scene he says about Andrew 'he's a breath of fresh air isn't he? Thank god I don't breathe.'

Yup, he's truly sensitive about his 'people'. 🙄

People can make jokes at their own expense, doesn't mean it gives someone the right to then use them as insults.

And she never tells him to actually shut up, and yet people are wailing on that Spike was being 'silenced' and that therefore his only recourse was to punch somebody.

Faith wasn't letting Spike say his piece. Whether or not she used the words "shut up" is irrelevant, the outcome was the same.

Word choice is significant. You're saying that the names matter but forget that Faith never says anything close to 'shut up'. 'Save your breath' and basically 'no more speeches' are mind even if Faith's tone is not.

Faith didn't say "save your breath", She said "save your LACK OF breath" A direct jab at Spike's vampirism. "The time for speeches is over" is the same as saying shut up.

Actually after Spike hits her Faith pauses, takes it in and then fights back. He crossed the line and she took a moment to adjust, she doesn't immediately hit back.

So what you're saying then is that she didn't just react on reflex, she actually stopped, thought about it then decided to hit him back alongside taunting him and hitting him a lot more than he hit her. Yeah, Faith really has the moral high ground there doesn't she?

What she says to him after he punches doesn't matter, he started it.

And she carried it on. It's six of one, half a dozen of the other.

The motivations don't matter at all, the fact is that Faith DOES defend Buffy, its there in the scene.

Motivation does matter because it wasn't about defending Buffy, it was about Faith not wanting to be leader. If it had been suggested that Giles or Willow be leader instead, do you think Faith would've still "defended" Buffy? She didn't want the responsibility, it was about her not Buffy.

Yeah, Buffy said she couldn't stay- ULTIMATUM- and then she was called on it and chose, instead of backing down from her ultimatum, to leave. Her choice.

Dawn explicitly says "Then you can't stay here. Buffy, I love you, but you were right. We have to be together on this. You can't be a part of it. So I need you to leave. I'm sorry, but this is my house, too."

That doesn't give Buffy a choice, it practically forces her out.

Except he attacked Faith, the wrong target, so no, not at all.

Everyone played their part in the mutiny, including Faith. At best you could say she DELIBERATELY antagonised Spike so as to draw his fire away from the others., so she kind of stepped up as leader in that regard, but failed in another by failing to de-escalate the situation.

Bingo. Buffy's plan was right only because the script says so, it doesn't. She had no clue about anything and had no plan to beat Caleb. She just wanted to charge in again.

Buffy offered to hear strategies on how to go about it but the fact remains that going back to the vineyard was a necessity. If nobody wnet back, then they wouldn't have gotten the scythe, and if they didn't get the scythe then they would never have been able to activate the potentials into slayers which gave them a fighting chance against the uber vamps.

Completely irrelevant since you claimed that Kennedy was a bully in this scene and she isn't. She is perhaps bratty and entitled but she isn't aggressive and threatening. Spike is.

What scene are you actually referring to?

I've said that Kennedy is a bully in the scene with Chloe.

She is aggressive during the mutiny when it looks like Willow is about to defend Buffy and Kennedy jumps down her throat before she even says a word. Kennedy is the one leading the mutiny and it all fuelled by her own self-interest. Faith even has to tell her to "back the hell off" later when Kennedy begins to start on her because Faith isn't letting her insert her opinion.

You ignore the first part where the group is acting well, like a group. Faith is letting them all figure stuff out, pretty much a team. Faith is not the leader of the Scoobies, just the potentials. It's an important distinction you're ignoring.

The phrase "too many chiefs" springs to mind. Faith is the leader of everyone, she may let the scoobies have some input on her decision making as leader, but at the end of the day the final word is hers.

You've called Riley abusive in the past and yet valiantly defend a character who punches women., A lot.
It's interesting.

I've said Riley shows "red flag behaviour" and that he's "controlling". I've asked if Briley was abusive before someone pointed out that abusive perhaps wasn't the best word to describe it which I agree with. The point still stands that Briley wasn't a healthy relationship. Riley doesn't quite cross the threshold into abusive but he does demonstrate some worrying behaviour in regards to Buffy that isn't normal.

Buffy punches a lot of men, Should gender make a difference?

No actually, I was just matching your condescension.

That's rich coming from you.

I said that Spike's behaviour in early season 7 was erratic because of the soul (in regards to the fight with Anya) and your response was:

"Yeah, Spike's always 'erratic' or kinda pissed or provoked or subjected to vampire bigotry and the only way he can respond is to lash out, poor guy. /sarc."

I just replied back to your sarcasm.


Getting back onto the topic of the thread, Spike is not the best partner for Buffy, neither is Riley. Angel is probably the best partner she had, however he's not perfect because of the curse. Maybe if he could anchor his soul and she's no longer "cookie dough" then they could make it work, until then Buffy is better off free and single.[/QUOTE]

 

[Taake]

That's rich coming from you.

I said that Spike's behaviour in early season 7 was erratic because of the soul (in regards to the fight with Anya) and your response was:

"Yeah, Spike's always 'erratic' or kinda pissed or provoked or subjected to vampire bigotry and the only way he can respond is to lash out, poor guy. /sarc."

I just replied back to your sarcasm.

Cool your heads and get back to topic does not mean "get one more shot in", the "no but you said" back and forth is childish from both of you. Rise above or move on.

 

[thetopher]

People can make jokes at their own expense, doesn't mean it gives someone the right to then use them as insults.

It does show that Spike isn't particularly sensitive to the fact though does it? Is not like she triggered him or anything. The comparison is getting more and more painfully forced.
Faith isn't a bigot, prejudice towards vampires isn't an -ism. Your just making excuses for Spike's poor hurt feelings.

Faith wasn't letting Spike say his piece. Whether or not she used the words "shut up" is irrelevant, the outcome was the same.

Talk is still talk but words do matter a great deal. The choice of words is important. Spike has his turn and now it was time for someone else have a turn. Spike could've said 'actually no, I haven't finished' but he didn't.

He stopped the conversation, not Faith. With violence.

Faith didn't say "save your breath", She said "save your LACK OF breath" A direct jab at Spike's vampirism. "The time for speeches is over" is the same as saying shut up.

I do wonder about this justification. I mean, Spike tells Buffy to basically 'shut up' in 'Touched' 'I've hummed along to your pity-ditty and now I want a turn on the mike', so I guess if Buffy had then punched Spike out of the blue it would've been six of one and half a dozen of the other, right?

So what you're saying then is that she didn't just react on reflex, she actually stopped, thought about it then decided to hit him back alongside taunting him and hitting him a lot more than he hit her. Yeah, Faith really has the moral high ground there doesn't she?

Yes, I am saying that. She didn't blindly react but considered her actions, just like Spike when he threw his punch. But the fact is that Spike crossed the line and then Faith responded.
Is she blameless? No.
But its nowhere near six of one and half a dozen of the other or anything equivalent 50/50. Spike is so effing out of line in this scene. He shoud've just left and gone to see Buffy but he just had to be seen to be a macho twit.

Motivation does matter because it wasn't about defending Buffy, it was about Faith not wanting to be leader.

Faith says before, during and after that she didn't want things to go down the way they did and that she wishes Buffy was there with them and many things to that effect, so she WAS sticking up for her AND she didn't want to be leader.

Dawn explicitly says "Then you can't stay here. Buffy, I love you, but you were right. We have to be together on this. You can't be a part of it. So I need you to leave. I'm sorry, but this is my house, too."

That doesn't give Buffy a choice, it practically forces her out.

Well if you stomp your foot and give everyone an ultimatum that you get called on, it is in fact your fault.
Buffy in the scene is unreasonable, paranoid and dictatorial. Everyone realized that except her. No wonder she left, kicked a guy out of is house and had a sulk.

Everyone played their part in the mutiny, including Faith.

Spike thinks- and says- that Faith was the main instigator, blames her and ascribes motives to her that are untrue. So again, no Spike is not correct.

What scene are you actually referring to?

Um, the one where Faith 'stood up to the bully' (as you claimed) Kennedy in 'Touched'. Kennedy wasn't being a bully, she was being entitled. So you're incorrect in your description.

The phrase "too many chiefs" springs to mind.

Not really, since 'too many chefs' implies that nobody was working effectively. Here we see them all functioning quite well.

Buffy punches a lot of men, Should gender make a difference?

Buffy punches evil things that oppose her/hurt people- demons, vampires, sometimes cultists or Bringers. I can't think of many allies she punches without provocation. Maybe a few of times in extreme circumstances and its ut of character. When she does it its always wrong.

Spike (with a soul) does it a whole bunch in a fairly short space, is constantly excused for doing so. It is a pattern with him, which means that it matters little if Fath provoked him, he most likely would've done it anyway.
I guess I shouldn't have brought gender in it though.

But you do tend to gender the whole Riley/Buffy dynamic; as if it matters that Riley- a normal man- grabs Buffy- a superpowered somebody who can drop-kick him across the room- even matters.

That's rich coming from you.

Ah, whatever.

 

[Taake]

It does show that Spike isn't particularly sensitive to the fact though does it? Is not like she triggered him or anything. The comparison is getting more and more painfully forced.
Faith isn't a bigot, prejudice towards vampires isn't an -ism. Your just making excuses for Spike's poor hurt feelings.



Talk is still talk but words do matter a great deal. The choice of words is important. Spike has his turn and now it was time for someone else have a turn. Spike could've said 'actually no, I haven't finished' but he didn't.

He stopped the conversation, not Faith. With violence.



I do wonder about this justification. I mean, Spike tells Buffy to basically 'shut up' in 'Touched' 'I've hummed along to your pity-ditty and now I want a turn on the mike', so I guess if Buffy had then punched Spike out of the blue it would've been six of one and half a dozen of the other, right?



Yes, I am saying that. She didn't blindly react but considered her actions, just like Spike when he threw his punch. But the fact is that Spike crossed the line and then Faith responded.
Is she blameless? No.
But its nowhere near six of one and half a dozen of the other or anything equivalent 50/50. Spike is so effing out of line in this scene. He shoud've just left and gone to see Buffy but he just had to be seen to be a macho twit.



Faith says before, during and after that she didn't want things to go down the way they did and that she wishes Buffy was there with them and many things to that effect, so she WAS sticking up for her AND she didn't want to be leader.



Well if you stomp your foot and give everyone an ultimatum that you get called on, it is in fact your fault.
Buffy in the scene is unreasonable, paranoid and dictatorial. Everyone realized that except her. No wonder she left, kicked a guy out of is house and had a sulk.



Spike thinks- and says- that Faith was the main instigator, blames her and ascribes motives to her that are untrue. So again, no Spike is not correct.



Um, the one where Faith 'stood up to the bully' (as you claimed) Kennedy in 'Touched'. Kennedy wasn't being a bully, she was being entitled. So you're incorrect in your description.



Not really, since 'too many chefs' implies that nobody was working effectively. Here we see them all functioning quite well.



Buffy punches evil things that oppose her/hurt people- demons, vampires, sometimes cultists or Bringers. I can't think of many allies she punches without provocation. Maybe a few of times in extreme circumstances and its ut of character. When she does it its always wrong.

Spike (with a soul) does it a whole bunch in a fairly short space, is constantly excused for doing so. It is a pattern with him, which means that it matters little if Fath provoked him, he most likely would've done it anyway.
I guess I shouldn't have brought gender in it though.

But you do tend to gender the whole Riley/Buffy dynamic; as if it matters that Riley- a normal man- grabs Buffy- a superpowered somebody who can drop-kick him across the room- even matters.



Ah, whatever.

Did you not see my TWO posts above?

Anymore of this nonsense and you'll both be banned from the thread for a week.

 

[Mrs Gordo]

I think Spike was literally the worst partner for Buffy in the entire run of the show.

There that should get us back on track.

 

[Btvs fan]

I think Spike was literally the worst partner for Buffy in the entire run of the show.

There that should get us back on track.

Nope

 

[Skanky Vamp]

I think Spike was literally the worst partner for Buffy in the entire run of the show.

You don't list reasons. Maybe if you gave some reason as to why people might be able to agree with that. Me? I don't see him as literally the worst partner.

 

[DeadlyDuo]

@thetopher I disagree with you but let's just agree to disagree and move on.

But you do tend to gender the whole Riley/Buffy dynamic; as if it matters that Riley- a normal man- grabs Buffy- a superpowered somebody who can drop-kick him across the room- even matters.

It's not about the genders as such, it's about the fact that Riley is often presented as this wholesome guy that Buffy should want to be in a relationship with, Xander even describes him as the type of guy who "comes along once in a life time", yet his behaviour is anything but wholesome.

As much as I dislike Spuffy, at least it doesn't try to pretend to be something it's not. People say Riley's Season 5 behaviour is out of character, and at first it does seem like that because of how noticeable it is, however it isn't as out of the blue as it first appears because he does show shades of it in Season 4, particularly in The Yoko Factor.

I don't see him as literally the worst partner.

Who do you think is the worst partner?

@katmobile The matter was between @thetopher and myself and has been put to rest. Don't get involved.

 

[Skanky Vamp]

Who do you think is the worst partner?

Scott Hope. He was bland and smarmy. Nothing about them screamed 'couple'. He was pretty much the opposite of what the previous boyfriend was, and what Buffy thought she wanted at the time; he was safe, vanilla and boring.

 

[DeadlyDuo]

Scott Hope. He was bland and smarmy. Nothing about them screamed 'couple'. He was pretty much the opposite of what the previous boyfriends was, and what Buffy thought she wanted at the time; he was safe, vanilla and boring.

Generally I agree with you, however @caitaintdead did make an interesting video in the defence of Scott Hope.

Do you think all of Buffy's boyfriends had a different quality that Buffy wanted/needed in a partner but none of them were "the whole package"?

 

[katmobile]

I think Spike was literally the worst partner for Buffy in the entire run of the show.

There that should get us back on track.

Wow respond to a flame war with more flaming....great

 

[Skanky Vamp]

Do you think all of Buffy's boyfriends had a different quality that Buffy wanted/needed in a partner but none of them were "the whole package"?

No, I don't think that. I think many of her boyfriends were a matter of convenience and she could not be without one so she sometimes jumped on the closest (and easiest thing) she could find. I think there was only one that could be considered the whole package.

 

[katmobile]

If Parker counts he's with worst.

 

[DeadlyDuo]

I think there was only one that could be considered the whole package.

And that would be...…?

If Parker counts he's with worst.

Parker's behaviour after he and Buffy slept together definitely puts him as a potential contender, but I honestly don't know whether Buffy read too much into the situation whereas Parker saw it as a bit of fun, or if he genuinely led her on just to sleep with her. They'd been out on a few dates so he put in the time which seems a little bit too much effort if all he was after was a one night stand.

 

[katmobile]

Spanky I suppose you think Spike is but at least most of Buffy's men tried and made sacrifices for her. Parker just manipulated her to get what he wanted, used her, moved onto to the next girl without even bothering to dump her, tried to use her friend confronting him as a chance to hook up with her and then boasted about it. I guess he didn't try and kill her but it's only because his brand of douchery gave him neither incentive or opportunity to do so.

 

[brinkster130]

@katmobile The matter was between @thetopher and myself and has been put to rest. Don't get involved.

Yeah, that's not how this forum works. You don't get to post things and then tell people when they can and can't respond to you. If you don't want to engage in discussion with certain people you don't have to, obviously, but let's not start telling people what to do.

 

[DeadlyDuo]

Yeah, that's not how this forum works. You don't get to post things and then tell people when they can and can't respond to you. If you don't want to engage in discussion with certain people you don't have to, obviously, but let's not start telling people what to do.

What I meant by that was that conversation had been stopped by Taake and then Katmobile kind of went in on it unnecessarily after the fact when the dust was settled. Admittedly I could've probably been a bit more diplomatic.