Given how badly I stumbled around while answering the question it'd be easy even for someone starting from a neutral perspective to be unsure about what I was trying to say. Of course you have already made it abundantly clear that you're starting from anywhere but neutral, so you probably fancy it as a wonderful chance to twist the facts and grind your axe a bit. So let me more clearly restate what I said:
- The extent to which I agree with any of that is that there are some bloggers on the CSM.
- If you're seeking an apology for someone's actions, I suggest you start by asking them for it.
- Only a couple of other members of the CSM commented on the line at all and if they took offense, they didn't tell me about it.
The angle I failed to consider, which Hoots pointed out after the fact, was someone who has autism (really) themselves, or has a family member with it. I can understand and certainly wouldn't fault them for being offended at the way "autist" is casually thrown around in the eve community at large, and thinking to my cousin (who is autistic, albeit high functioning in no small part thanks to his mother's herculean efforts to raise him well and get grants & funding for educating his school on it) it makes me embarrassed to think about when I've used the term myself in the past. But as I said - if you want an apology, ask Mittani.
Quote:
Or do you agree with Mittens statement that the only one who matters on the CSM is you Mynnna.
Nope. Did I fail to make that clear?
Quote:That, as you have also stated in your interview put your own agendas and gameplay ahead of the rest of the game when it comes to your CSM obligations.
And now you're trying to twist things as much as possible. The question you're referring to was something along the lines of "Do you think there's a metagame advantage to having someone on the CSM" to which my answer was more or less "There's definitely value in having your playstyle represented on the CSM as it's a direct conduit to CCP and being able to look at at influence changes ahead of time to avoid unintended effects upon or better benefit that playstyle is valuable, but thinking that goes so far as to translate to being able to bring about change for your specific group or control CCP is laughable."
Look me in the eye and tell me with a straight face that you
don't think that Mike Azariah hasn't explicitly looked at something for the benefit of highsec. That Ali Aras hasn't explicitly looked at something for the benefit of NRDS as a philosophy, that Ripard Teg hasn't explicitly looked at how to bring about benefit for small gang PvP, or that either Chitsa or James haven't looked at explicit benefit to wormholes, and I'll laugh in your naive face.
I'm not going to expect you, or the delightful paranoid above you, to take any of that as sincere. But then again, I wouldn't expect you to even if I'd more clearly disagreed with it and begged for forgiveness, either.