Every analogy ever written has someone immediately afterwords who says “this analogy fails.” Seriously have you ever seen an analogy written anywhere where someone didn’t follow it up with some dribble along the lines of “Well this analogy clearly fails because its not the EXACT same scenario.” No kidding its not the exact same scenario. That’s why its an analogy.
Here’s another analogy I’m sure you’ll claim “isn’t the exact same thing therefore it fails”
If a bunch of people consistently take a dump (constant nonstop nonconstructive whining posts) all over your neighborhood (the ranger forums) and you eventually get sick and tired of it and come out onto your porch and yell at the said trouser droppers (the mentioned posters) are you the aggressor or just maybe should people stop taking fat steamy dumps all over the neighborhood lawns?
ummm no. I’m not convinced you know how analogy’s work, either that or you’re tripping over yourself because you can’t deal with being wrong.
Your second anaology almost worked until you turned it into a question. It was an analogy for what you thought you were doing, and worked well, even if it’s taste is somewhat questionable.
Your first analogy didn’t work, not because it’s needs to be a precise carbon copy of events (which is a bizarre and totally false analysis of my objection to your failed analogy), but because you paired the wrong character roles and paired events which aren’t analogous.
People complaining because they feel wronged and aren’t receiving satisfactory responses, is not analogous to a random act of violence, in which one party is unable to fight. It simply isn’t.
A better analogy for the actual situation, using your suspiciously over-emotive language, would be; a crowd battering on a door of someone who insutled them, then some hero-wannabe coming along and punching people in the crowd, while the original instigators sit behind their locked door doing nothing about it, even though they could stop the rabble with only a few choice words.
That’s an analogy of the situation. Anet are the instigators, hiding behind a door in a wall of silence, doing nothing to quell the dissapointment of the crowd, the players, even though they could very easily. So the palyers are sat here, hammering on the door, making post after post, thread after thread, hoping to be heard. Trying to get some sort of response. Then along comes you, the hero-wannabe, doing nothing of value and even making matters worse by wading in blindly with your fists, making no effort at all to understand the crowd or calm them. Shouting at the crowd then criticising them for shouting.
My whole point in the previous post was that if you actually cared about your neighbourhood (your second analogy) you would try to stop the ahem muck-spreaders by explaining why what they’re doing is as bad for them as the neighbourhood. You haven’t done that. You’re just as bad as the people you admonish, if not worse because they at least are trying to make things better, even if they’re going about it the wrong way. You’re just sticking your oar in then pretending to be doing something about it.
