May I please have his name and server so I can roll an alt and harass him about how much his dps sucks and how much of a scrub he is? =)

/applaud

"Me zerg!" Ah murlocs, the orcs of the ocean world.

Well you're wrong and racist in that situation because that statement is untrue. Black people as a race have no less ability to be clever. However if you were to point out that black people generally had less education across the board because they are often limited to substandard school systems as a result of their income bracket due to circumstances directly related to the enslavement of their race on this (NA) continent, you'd just be being honest. On the whole blacks (10% of the population) score lower intellectually than whites (80%) on tests because whites have a far larger median score group which is more apparent in localized testing.

On that point let me say something. If someone just takes that information out context (blacks score lower) and assume it's a race thing, and not an environment thing, then they are offensive without intending to be so. Now in that situation, if you show the offended black person that the person in question is an idiot and has no working understand of why blacks score lower on said tests, I think their offended-ness will fade as they realize the person didn't mean to hurt them... they were just an idiot. Once a lack of intent is shown, the person should no longer be offended. (They are still free to hate the person for being stupid and society for making them that way.)

On your final point, motive does not mean 'intending to break the law". Motive means "intending to do something". If I accidentally knock someone's item into my bookbag, I am not a thief. If I decide to take their item because I want it, I am. If I pick the wrong car in the parking lot and try to open it with my keys I am not trying to break into that car, I'm just confused. If I pry the door open, I'm trying to commit grand theft auto. (or at least breaking and entering.) Hope that clears that up.

It also occurs to me, (because Sprink pointed it out) that you're from across the pond and I'm a fat lazy American that our way of using the language might cause a some misunderstand as our colloquialisms and speech patterns are slightly off. :)

Well the line "...whether the offense was meant ..." is what triggered me.

As for my example: No, I did not tell him to grow up or get over it at the time, because yes, I acknowledge that he in fact had a reason to be upset. I even to this day allow people to be hurt by things I don't intend. But these days if someone does what he did I'd probably tell them they were a douche bag, their sibling hates them for being such a whiny asshole, and that they are a waste of a consciousness. =/ I honestly cannot accept willful ignorance or willful oversensitivity. It's guys like him who make me hate most offended people. I'm not saying it's wrong to be offended, I'm saying it's wrong to go on the warpath when there was honestly no slight.

That all being said, I have reread your post in it's entirety again and I think I somehow misinterpreted your intention, so I must apologize for the long winded irrelevant post and this follow up to it. =P I know I have already dirtied the SAN boards with my pedantic arguments about profanity, and it was never my intention do do the same in your front yard :)

I should say this though: intent is not necessary for someone to be offended. However, being offended when someone meant no offensive and then trying to tell them they are in the wrong or are a bad person is inexcusable. You cannot have a crime without motive. (And don't get me started on involuntary manslaughter. There is a difference between criminal negligence and criminal ignorance.)

There is one problem I found when reading this Tam.

"Ultimately what offends an individual is entirely subjective. The point is not whether the offense was meant or justified..."

That is just wrong. The point is whether or not offense was INTENDED. You're example of punching someone and whether or not you broke their nose shows intent either way. Now if I wave my hand and someone walks into it and I break their nose I technically did nothing wrong. (Granted I would feel bad because I'm a decent person) The onus should always been on the offended if no intent was meant. People can and will be butthurt by just about anything these days, and personally I'm sick of the social tip toe-ing that seems to be mandatory.

Another thought that comes to mind is this: I told a joke one day about a a guy dying in a car crash. Turns out one of my coworkers had a sibling who died in a car crash some ten years prior. He didn't say anything at the time, but he went around telling everyone I was an insensitive prick. Now I didn't know about this fact, but in retrospect it doesn't matter.

See, the guy already didn't like me for some reason. It was probably because I'm a loud mouthed, smart arsed, know-it-all. But he latched onto the fact that I (unknowingly) told a joke that was offensive in his presence. Frankly, I think death can be, and is often, funny. But the facts are, I didn't know about the sibling, it was ten years prior, and it was a joke. Unfortunately it was a joke that had a negative effect on his mood. Even so, I am not in the wrong.

Ultimately, life sucks for many if not all people sometimes. And there will always be reminders of said suckiness. Learn and move on I say. And if someone wants to throw verbal fisticuffs intentionally... then fine, cut em down. But I don't want to hear some bystander cry every time he decides to jump in front of a punch because once, a long time ago someone blasted him in the kisser.

Did any of that make sense? I hate trying to be consistent with metaphors. =P

That will be annoying. I had not considered that issue at all.

I suppose I come off a bit harsh when it comes to pugs, but I cannot find it in myself to invest anything in pugs at all. I mean sure occasionally I'll get the good group that is nice and we have fun... but usually its the 'hunter md's the tank and starts every pull even though the healer is drinking" sort of group. In which case, I'd make sure to stand by the tank and lifegrip the hunter into melee every cd.

=P

Also, I think it's time again to champion the cause of " if you think it's the healer's fault you died Mr. Dps, then you are an a asshat." That may very well be my next blog post.

As a player of almost entirely plate melee classes... the people in sissy robes do generally know better. All I can see is boss butt.

Honestly though, I don't take the game too seriously. If I was fighting I dunno, Koralon and wasn't in the fire but Tam lifegripped Derull just so that my dps would suffer.... I'd laugh. I think that it'll be a neat tool for those times when say, so and so lags up and isn't moving, or maybe to save a friend from the mc'd lolstorming warrior.

I do understand that there will be some asshats who will blame the priest because they died to the fire, but there will always be those asshats. Don't let douchebags ruin a potentially fun and occassionally awesome ability. :)

As for the trust thing, I don't think this ability should even come into play in a guild run. I mean if a use pops up, cool, but a group of people who choose to play together shouldn't need lifegrip anyways. And I was gonna say something about how rude it would be to lifegrip in pugs because it would be a sort of invasion of space... but who cares? They're pugs.