8 Bit Philosophy: Who Was Machiavelli? (The Prince)

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Machiavelli's time has passed for us in the Western World, so it seems that love is what sticks. Many countries have the resources for love-based governments, after all. Even when governmental forces strip us of our rights, the means arise from individual motives facilitated by negligence, not institutionalized hatred. When candidates for an office of power compete for power in Western nations, they do not incite fear through militias but instead incite love through pledges. Although such pledges often are not fulfilled, we are no worse-off as we would have been under a violent regime.

Since people in a state of loving perform better than those in a state of fearing, love-based tactics are better for long-term leadership strategies. Thus, the question that reasonable potential leaders ask themselves is, "Can I attain power by inciting love? If not, can I attain it by inciting fear?"

Pretty disgusted by this attempt at popularizing "The ends justify the means". It sounds just like "trickle down wealth" propaganda to me.

The inherent problem with "the end justify the means" is that people are flawed in at least two ways: we make mistakes and we sometimes see our own advancement at any cost as justified.

Pushing a man out of the trajectory of a fast moving train may cause him to fall badly, but the ends justify the means, saving his life.

However, shooting a man in the leg with a gun at long range because it looks like he's on a collision course with a running train, will also save his life. Although he might have just decelerated in time to not hit the train by himself.

Do the ends really justify the means? Only if you don't make mistakes.

And we always do.

------------------------

This is some dangerous and harmful kind of philosophy being peddled and I'd warn everyone not to take it to heart readily.

Xman490:
Machiavelli's time has passed for us in the Western World, so it seems that love is what sticks. Many countries have the resources for love-based governments, after all. Even when governmental forces strip us of our rights, the means arise from individual motives facilitated by negligence, not institutionalized hatred. When candidates for an office of power compete for power in Western nations, they do not incite fear through militias but instead incite love through pledges. Although such pledges often are not fulfilled, we are no worse-off as we would have been under a violent regime.

Since people in a state of loving perform better than those in a state of fearing, love-based tactics are better for long-term leadership strategies. Thus, the question that reasonable potential leaders ask themselves is, "Can I attain power by inciting love? If not, can I attain it by inciting fear?"

Western nations often use carrot and stick approach. The political candidates do not instill fear of themselves but, often through misinformation and breeding of ignorance, fear of their opposition. It is not enough to get the populace to love you but to also get them to fear and thus hate your opponents. The reasonable candidate does not engage in the false dichotomy; the reasonable candidate embraces both tactics.

dunam:
Pretty disgusted by this attempt at popularizing "The ends justify the means". It sounds just like "trickle down wealth" propaganda to me.

The inherent problem with "the end justify the means" is that people are flawed in at least two ways: we make mistakes and we sometimes see our own advancement at any cost as justified.

Pushing a man out of the trajectory of a fast moving train may cause him to fall badly, but the ends justify the means, saving his life.

However, shooting a man in the leg with a gun at long range because it looks like he's on a collision course with a running train, will also save his life. Although he might have just decelerated in time to not hit the train by himself.

Do the ends really justify the means? Only if you don't make mistakes.

And we always do.

------------------------

This is some dangerous and harmful kind of philosophy being peddled and I'd warn everyone not to take it to heart readily.

You're quite right in that the philosophy of "ends justify the means" falls into the same quagmire as pure utilitarian morality. It presumes to know that the ends are actually good with insufficient data to come to that conclusion. The ends may justify the means but it depends on context. IN the world of morality and ethics, context is everything. You can use "the ends justify the means" but only if you build in a mechanism to the means that allows for the correction of errors. So too with utilitarian morality.

And the question is still not answered:

Did Macchiavelli, in fact, not mean what he wrote? Was it a satire on the rulers of the time?

Some of his claims are so ridiculous, you could come to the conclusion.

dunam:
This is some dangerous and harmful kind of philosophy being peddled and I'd warn everyone not to take it to heart readily.

I don't think the video was necessarily endorsing Machiavelli's philosophy of The Ends Justify The Means, but rather simply attempting to explain it.

dunam:
Pretty disgusted by this attempt at popularizing "The ends justify the means". It sounds just like "trickle down wealth" propaganda to me.

This is some dangerous and harmful kind of philosophy being peddled and I'd warn everyone not to take it to heart readily.

None of these 8--bit Philosophy vids are endorsing any one philosophy over the other or on the single topics, endorsing said subject. They're merely fostering discussion and thought over those philosophies, simplified by way of being short and concise and never once putting the idea that said philosophy is right or wrong.
Way to read into something that isn't even present.

Gorrath:
You're quite right in that the philosophy of "ends justify the means" falls into the same quagmire as pure utilitarian morality. It presumes to know that the ends are actually good with insufficient data to come to that conclusion. The ends may justify the means but it depends on context. IN the world of morality and ethics, context is everything. You can use "the ends justify the means" but only if you build in a mechanism to the means that allows for the correction of errors. So too with utilitarian morality.

Absolutely. I'd like to add that Machiavelli was writing specifically about the mechanisms of political power in Renaissance Europe, which is a very particular context indeed. If one reads The Prince, regardless of whether one takes it as a satire or not, its structure is similarly clinical to how we might view stereo instructions or perhaps a cookery book; there's very little commentary on absolute morality, but considerable analysis of the mechanics of political form & function where perceived morality itself is generally considered as simply another mechanism to be employed. Ostensibly that's what the pamphlet is of course, an instruction manual.

But if The Prince is taken as a satire then the whole interpretation is reversed, & it becomes a particularly damning condemnation of the matter it addresses. In this light it's worth bearing in mind that Machiavelli was variously imprisoned & tortured by his political masters, & that the body of his work (& he was quite prolific) is very different to this particular publication. The consensus of historians seems to claim it as a satire, but this is in no way conclusive.

What I find most interesting about this particular pamphlet however, is that it's one of the very first published examples of Game Theory.

dunam:
Pretty disgusted by this attempt at popularizing "The ends justify the means". It sounds just like "trickle down wealth" propaganda to me.

The inherent problem with "the end justify the means" is that people are flawed in at least two ways: we make mistakes and we sometimes see our own advancement at any cost as justified.

Pushing a man out of the trajectory of a fast moving train may cause him to fall badly, but the ends justify the means, saving his life.

However, shooting a man in the leg with a gun at long range because it looks like he's on a collision course with a running train, will also save his life. Although he might have just decelerated in time to not hit the train by himself.

Do the ends really justify the means? Only if you don't make mistakes.

And we always do.

------------------------

This is some dangerous and harmful kind of philosophy being peddled and I'd warn everyone not to take it to heart readily.

I have to agree. I'd also add the context of the times and places in which Nicolo Machiavelli lived, which are even now legendarily unstable. I'm not sure that taking the advice of a man who lived a violent and turbulent life, in violent and turbulent times, is wise.

I prefer to look to the advice of people who, by some means, rose above those times. By all accounts, Machiavelli and the people he advised already believed what he was preaching, and it would eventually (individually and as a group) ruin them.

Machiavelli... I can't help but notice that this was written during his exile, so I always felt it was kind of juvenile. It's like he said what felt good to him to justify his anger at that moment. It seem to speak to the fact that the entire "ends justifies the means" argument was used against him by the Medici, almost as a form of self justification for what had happened to him. But he was in fact a pretty good elected official who got caught up in someone else's anger, got kicked out of office, was tortured and then exiled himself.

One thing about these 8-bit philosophy shows is they don't ever show anything about the philosophers life. It's not like these things are some sort of divine influence, events that may have lead to their philosophies tend to be hyper important.

Baresark:
Machiavelli... I can't help but notice that this was written during his exile, so I always felt it was kind of juvenile. It's like he said what felt good to him to justify his anger at that moment. It seem to speak to the fact that the entire "ends justifies the means" argument was used against him by the Medici, almost as a form of self justification for what had happened to him. But he was in fact a pretty good elected official who got caught up in someone else's anger, got kicked out of office, was tortured and then exiled himself.
SNIP

It's frustrating how few people appreciate this. It's not as though we're reading the works of someone who accomplished what they wrote about, Sun Tzu, Gandhi, Musashi, Clausowitz, Mandela, and many others. We're talking about, just what you said, an exiled and embittered man who lived in what we'd consider a hellish state of affairs. The Borgias in particular seem to maintain a special infamy in the popular imagination, if only for their chaotic and excessive personal behaviors.

The Prince is not Machiavelli's view on how one should rule but on how one must rule if one is a dictator. Machiavelli strongly believed that principalities where an inferior form of government, was a strong advocate of republics, and wrote much more extensive works on republics, that most people never bother to look at. By those that study Machiavelli's works The Prince is frequently seen as a argument against principalities. Or a satire of the thoughts of the time on strong princes, as what he wrote was not new knowledge to the rulers of Europe but things that they where commonly taught while they were being groomed for leadership. Some even view The Prince as a subversive work meant to stir up the lower classes.

I thought The Prince was satire?

Ima Lemming:
I thought The Prince was satire?

See previous post

Baresark:
Machiavelli... I can't help but notice that this was written during his exile, so I always felt it was kind of juvenile. It's like he said what felt good to him to justify his anger at that moment. It seem to speak to the fact that the entire "ends justifies the means" argument was used against him by the Medici, almost as a form of self justification for what had happened to him. But he was in fact a pretty good elected official who got caught up in someone else's anger, got kicked out of office, was tortured and then exiled himself.

One thing about these 8-bit philosophy shows is they don't ever show anything about the philosophers life. It's not like these things are some sort of divine influence, events that may have lead to their philosophies tend to be hyper important.

I think it more likely that he wrote it to suck up to the powerful medici. The start of the prince certainly reads that way and the whole philosophy is exactly what an authority figure would want to hear.

Well considering that the father of this philosophy lived out the rest of his days in exile, doesn't seem like that strategy panned out too well for him, or it's a tacit admission that he himself was unable to live by his words.

Hell, we've seen in the real world that that kind of attitude leads to pretty poisonous outcomes, with any benefit to the country or the populace thereof debatable at best, often running directly counter to their long-term interests by shortsighted tactics that burn too many bridges.

All that said... it does seem like his philosophy has been taken out of historical context, both by those that criticise it, and those who would live by it, so maybe it's best we leave it in the past these days. After all, these days North Korea is perhaps one of the more notable examples of leadership being more feared than loved, and I suspect that's not a system we want to emulate.

These days the argument trends towards love vs respect, a more refined version of that approach... even if some leaders will still try to play the fear card; "the terrorists are hiding under your bed, let us protect you by arresting all those pesky whistleblowers"

leviadragon99:
Well considering that the father of this philosophy lived out the rest of his days in exile, doesn't seem like that strategy panned out too well for him, or it's a tacit admission that he himself was unable to live by his words.

Hell, we've seen in the real world that that kind of attitude leads to pretty poisonous outcomes, with any benefit to the country or the populace thereof debatable at best, often running directly counter to their long-term interests by shortsighted tactics that burn too many bridges.

All that said... it does seem like his philosophy has been taken out of historical context, both by those that criticise it, and those who would live by it, so maybe it's best we leave it in the past these days. After all, these days North Korea is perhaps one of the more notable examples of leadership being more feared than loved, and I suspect that's not a system we want to emulate.

These days the argument trends towards love vs respect, a more refined version of that approach... even if some leaders will still try to play the fear card; "the terrorists are hiding under your bed, let us protect you by arresting all those pesky whistleblowers"

His philosophy was that dictatorships where inferior to republic and the fear necessary to maintain the dictatorship would always lead to violence. The Prince is a book criticizing violent dictatorships not advocating for them.

Was pretty sure "The Prince" was a satire on the shit heads that where in power at the time. Not a guide on how to be a great leader.

catalyst8:

Gorrath:
You're quite right in that the philosophy of "ends justify the means" falls into the same quagmire as pure utilitarian morality. It presumes to know that the ends are actually good with insufficient data to come to that conclusion. The ends may justify the means but it depends on context. IN the world of morality and ethics, context is everything. You can use "the ends justify the means" but only if you build in a mechanism to the means that allows for the correction of errors. So too with utilitarian morality.

Absolutely. I'd like to add that Machiavelli was writing specifically about the mechanisms of political power in Renaissance Europe, which is a very particular context indeed. If one reads The Prince, regardless of whether one takes it as a satire or not, its structure is similarly clinical to how we might view stereo instructions or perhaps a cookery book; there's very little commentary on absolute morality, but considerable analysis of the mechanics of political form & function where perceived morality itself is generally considered as simply another mechanism to be employed. Ostensibly that's what the pamphlet is of course, an instruction manual.

But if The Prince is taken as a satire then the whole interpretation is reversed, & it becomes a particularly damning condemnation of the matter it addresses. In this light it's worth bearing in mind that Machiavelli was variously imprisoned & tortured by his political masters, & that the body of his work (& he was quite prolific) is very different to this particular publication. The consensus of historians seems to claim it as a satire, but this is in no way conclusive.

What I find most interesting about this particular pamphlet however, is that it's one of the very first published examples of Game Theory.

I've never worried over whether it was satire or not because, as you say, it reads like an instruction manual. One of my favorite examples of this is where he talks about dealing with conquered lands. He mentions that merely stationing an army in a land you've conquered will do little to make that land your own. The heart of the people will still be against you and revolt is an inevitability. If you want to make a conquered land yours, you must send your own citizens to settle it. Whether he intends this as satire or not, the effectiveness of this tactic is unquestionable. Which is precisely why it is against international law to do it.

Through an amoral lens, much of what he writes in The Prince really is good advice for achieving the desired ends. It's just that the means he suggests are often immoral or unethical, but that was hardly a concern for Princes vying for power. I read The Prince as a manual for how to win at a specific game being played in that time and place. It's like a Gamfaqs for an unstable, principality-ruled Europe. Of course he wrote a lot about how the game was broken and how there were much better ways of ruling than those employed by the principality method, but within the confines of that method The Prince is a work of masterful insight.

Darknacht:

leviadragon99:
Well considering that the father of this philosophy lived out the rest of his days in exile, doesn't seem like that strategy panned out too well for him, or it's a tacit admission that he himself was unable to live by his words.

Hell, we've seen in the real world that that kind of attitude leads to pretty poisonous outcomes, with any benefit to the country or the populace thereof debatable at best, often running directly counter to their long-term interests by shortsighted tactics that burn too many bridges.

All that said... it does seem like his philosophy has been taken out of historical context, both by those that criticise it, and those who would live by it, so maybe it's best we leave it in the past these days. After all, these days North Korea is perhaps one of the more notable examples of leadership being more feared than loved, and I suspect that's not a system we want to emulate.

These days the argument trends towards love vs respect, a more refined version of that approach... even if some leaders will still try to play the fear card; "the terrorists are hiding under your bed, let us protect you by arresting all those pesky whistleblowers"

His philosophy was that dictatorships where inferior to republic and the fear necessary to maintain the dictatorship would always lead to violence. The Prince is a book criticizing violent dictatorships not advocating for them.

Yes, I often wrote my criticisms in the context of sucking up to the powerful, and offering detailed and complete instructions to act like the object of my criticism.

:|

Dynast Brass:

Darknacht:
His philosophy was that dictatorships where inferior to republic and the fear necessary to maintain the dictatorship would always lead to violence. The Prince is a book criticizing violent dictatorships not advocating for them.

Yes, I often wrote my criticisms in the context of sucking up to the powerful, and offering detailed and complete instructions to act like the object of my criticism.

:|

I see you are unfamiliar with satire.

Gorrath:
I've never worried over whether it was satire or not because, as you say, it reads like an instruction manual. One of my favorite examples of this is where he talks about dealing with conquered lands. He mentions that merely stationing an army in a land you've conquered will do little to make that land your own. The heart of the people will still be against you and revolt is an inevitability. If you want to make a conquered land yours, you must send your own citizens to settle it. Whether he intends this as satire or not, the effectiveness of this tactic is unquestionable. Which is precisely why it is against international law to do it.

Through an amoral lens, much of what he writes in The Prince really is good advice for achieving the desired ends. It's just that the means he suggests are often immoral or unethical, but that was hardly a concern for Princes vying for power. I read The Prince as a manual for how to win at a specific game being played in that time and place. It's like a Gamfaqs for an unstable, principality-ruled Europe. Of course he wrote a lot about how the game was broken and how there were much better ways of ruling than those employed by the principality method, but within the confines of that method The Prince is a work of masterful insight.

Other had already written much more detailed guides and the princes where already being educated in these strategies. The difference between what others wrote and the Prince is that the Prince makes the actions sound reprehensible. It was either criticism on the system or it was so poorly written it is generally assumed to be criticism and when put into context of his life and other works and the fact he did not distribute it to the princes of Europe but instead quietly among his friends and other advocates for republics it seems that the former is more likely than the latter.

Darknacht:

Dynast Brass:

Darknacht:
His philosophy was that dictatorships where inferior to republic and the fear necessary to maintain the dictatorship would always lead to violence. The Prince is a book criticizing violent dictatorships not advocating for them.

Yes, I often wrote my criticisms in the context of sucking up to the powerful, and offering detailed and complete instructions to act like the object of my criticism.

:|

I see you are unfamiliar with satire.

Not at all, I'm just familiar with Machiavelli.

Dynast Brass:

Darknacht:

Dynast Brass:

Yes, I often wrote my criticisms in the context of sucking up to the powerful, and offering detailed and complete instructions to act like the object of my criticism.

:|

I see you are unfamiliar with satire.

Not at all, I'm just familiar with Machiavelli.

So you are familiar with his much more extensive works directly criticizing principalities and that he had a tendency to get arrested for advocating against them?

Darknacht:

Dynast Brass:

Darknacht:
I see you are unfamiliar with satire.

Not at all, I'm just familiar with Machiavelli.

So you are familiar with his much more extensive works directly criticizing principalities and that he had a tendency to get arrested for advocating against them?

Yes, and the times when they were written relative to 'The Prince', and how he presented them in his lifetime. It's possible to be critical of something, and still provide a guide to live by within that framework, without satire or irony. His life and times suggest that kind of behavior, and the rest of his works do not support the notion of him as a great satirist.

But you know, people have to always be writing something new for their thesis, so we get this every so often, along with Shakespeare denial. \_(ツ)_/

Dynast Brass:

Darknacht:

Dynast Brass:

Not at all, I'm just familiar with Machiavelli.

So you are familiar with his much more extensive works directly criticizing principalities and that he had a tendency to get arrested for advocating against them?

Yes, and the times when they were written relative to 'The Prince', and how he presented them in his lifetime. It's possible to be critical of something, and still provide a guide to live by within that framework, without satire or irony. His life and times suggest that kind of behavior, and the rest of his works do not support the notion of him as a great satirist.

But you know, people have to always be writing something new for their thesis, so we get this every so often, along with Shakespeare denial.

Figuring the majority opinion of scholars is that it was written as criticism, you seem to be on the denial side.

Darknacht:

Gorrath:
I've never worried over whether it was satire or not because, as you say, it reads like an instruction manual. One of my favorite examples of this is where he talks about dealing with conquered lands. He mentions that merely stationing an army in a land you've conquered will do little to make that land your own. The heart of the people will still be against you and revolt is an inevitability. If you want to make a conquered land yours, you must send your own citizens to settle it. Whether he intends this as satire or not, the effectiveness of this tactic is unquestionable. Which is precisely why it is against international law to do it.

Through an amoral lens, much of what he writes in The Prince really is good advice for achieving the desired ends. It's just that the means he suggests are often immoral or unethical, but that was hardly a concern for Princes vying for power. I read The Prince as a manual for how to win at a specific game being played in that time and place. It's like a Gamfaqs for an unstable, principality-ruled Europe. Of course he wrote a lot about how the game was broken and how there were much better ways of ruling than those employed by the principality method, but within the confines of that method The Prince is a work of masterful insight.

Other had already written much more detailed guides and the princes where already being educated in these strategies. The difference between what others wrote and the Prince is that the Prince makes the actions sound reprehensible. It was either criticism on the system or it was so poorly written it is generally assumed to be criticism and when put into context of his life and other works and the fact he did not distribute it to the princes of Europe but instead quietly among his friends and other advocates for republics it seems that the former is more likely than the latter.

I'm not sure what in the content of my post you are responding to. I'm making no claim as to whether The Prince is or is not satire. In fact it really does not matter to me if it is or is not. The point I'm making is that it is a good guide to the system being employed at the time among the Princes of Europe. Who he distributed the work to or whether other people also published works or whether anyone was already being educated in what was in The Prince is irrelevant (to this, my point). Whatever his intent, his insight into the matter shows in the way he's able to simply and matter-of-factly describe the situations, tactics and brutality of the game. I hope that clarifies my position. If you still find me to be in error, please do let me know which part you find objectionable. Cheers.

Darknacht:

Dynast Brass:

Darknacht:
So you are familiar with his much more extensive works directly criticizing principalities and that he had a tendency to get arrested for advocating against them?

Yes, and the times when they were written relative to 'The Prince', and how he presented them in his lifetime. It's possible to be critical of something, and still provide a guide to live by within that framework, without satire or irony. His life and times suggest that kind of behavior, and the rest of his works do not support the notion of him as a great satirist.

But you know, people have to always be writing something new for their thesis, so we get this every so often, along with Shakespeare denial. \_(ツ)_/

Figuring the majority opinion of scholars is that it was written as criticism, you seem to be on the denial side.

You figure the majority opinion is that 'The Prince' is a work of satire?

Dynast Brass:

You figure the majority opinion is that 'The Prince' is a work of satire?

Among scholars, of his works, the consensus is that it was written as criticism. Whether or not the word 'satire' is the best term to describe it is debatable.
There are some that disagree and say that it is not criticism but instead is meant as a trap, as some of the advice in The Prince would likely lead to a prices downfall, like quashing liberties and making the people fear you, while living among them, and arming them. I find this explanation unlikely as he did not distribute the Prince to the princes and even if it was its unlikely that they would have taken the advice of a known republican.
Only the fringe argue that it was simple a poorly written serious work made by a man who temporarily gave up his republican values before immediately going back to them after finishing the book.

I hope they do an episode on that great jingoist Mark Twain's magnum opus 'War Prayer' or the authoritarian George Orwell's manual 1984.

Or how about the holocaust-apologist Hanna Arendt?

Darknacht:

Dynast Brass:

You figure the majority opinion is that 'The Prince' is a work of satire?

Among scholars, of his works, the consensus is that it was written as criticism. Whether or not the word 'satire' is the best term to describe it is debatable.
There are some that disagree and say that it is not criticism but instead is meant as a trap, as some of the advice in The Prince would likely lead to a prices downfall, like quashing liberties and making the people fear you, while living among them, and arming them. I find this explanation unlikely as he did not distribute the Prince to the princes and even if it was its unlikely that they would have taken the advice of a known republican.
Only the fringe argue that it was simple a poorly written serious work made by a man who temporarily gave up his republican values before immediately going back to them after finishing the book.

So, "No" then, good to know.

Dynast Brass:

Darknacht:

Dynast Brass:

You figure the majority opinion is that 'The Prince' is a work of satire?

Among scholars, of his works, the consensus is that it was written as criticism. Whether or not the word 'satire' is the best term to describe it is debatable.
There are some that disagree and say that it is not criticism but instead is meant as a trap, as some of the advice in The Prince would likely lead to a prices downfall, like quashing liberties and making the people fear you, while living among them, and arming them. I find this explanation unlikely as he did not distribute the Prince to the princes and even if it was its unlikely that they would have taken the advice of a known republican.
Only the fringe argue that it was simple a poorly written serious work made by a man who temporarily gave up his republican values before immediately going back to them after finishing the book.

So, "No" then, good to know.

You really do have a way with manipulating and bastardizing information, don't you Dynast?

I'm fairly certain he said that the majority opinion, of people who are actually educated on the subject and therefore matter, is that The Prince was a work written in criticism of dictatorship and principalities.

So, no... what he's saying is "Yes, the majority of opinions that matter believe it was criticism. Not genuine advocacy for violent despots."

PhantomEcho:

Dynast Brass:

Darknacht:
Among scholars, of his works, the consensus is that it was written as criticism. Whether or not the word 'satire' is the best term to describe it is debatable.
There are some that disagree and say that it is not criticism but instead is meant as a trap, as some of the advice in The Prince would likely lead to a prices downfall, like quashing liberties and making the people fear you, while living among them, and arming them. I find this explanation unlikely as he did not distribute the Prince to the princes and even if it was its unlikely that they would have taken the advice of a known republican.
Only the fringe argue that it was simple a poorly written serious work made by a man who temporarily gave up his republican values before immediately going back to them after finishing the book.

So, "No" then, good to know.

You really do have a way with manipulating and bastardizing information, don't you Dynast?SNIP

If you can't control yourself, don't bother to reply, thanks.

If to maintain order you have to do heinous acts, I'd argue that order is not worth it. I'd rather die with my principles and morals intact than bend and contort them so I can keep my shallow sense of self-worth intact.

Dynast Brass:

PhantomEcho:

Dynast Brass:

So, "No" then, good to know.

You really do have a way with manipulating and bastardizing information, don't you Dynast?SNIP

If you can't control yourself, don't bother to reply, thanks.

Wow, and then you go and do the exact thing again.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here