User talk:Raine Valen/Archive 21

Did you

really want me to burn that, or was that sarcasm/etc? I kinda stopped paying attention for a bit around that point. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 05:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

ya rly. — Raine Valen 15:34, 1 Sep 2010 (UTC)

...

ilu, k.--*Yasmin Parvaneh* 04:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Why the sudden love surge? Not that I mind. — Raine Valen 4:37, 3 Sep 2010 (UTC)

The world needs more love.--*Yasmin Parvaneh* 04:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Something has to counter my ball of hate. Misery 06:36, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I have a hate ball. I used to make voodoo dolls, until I realize that people being stabbed repeatedly in the exact places I'd punctured them was just coincidence and my mind creating patterns where there weren't any, so I started taking all the dolls and gluing them together into this big ball, like that one boss in Castlevania or whatever. The dolls are made to one-twelfth scale (1 foot = 1 inch), but by now it's 3 feet in diameter. Occasionally I go bowling and I take it with me, but all the lumps really aren't conducive to that kind of sport. It makes for an interesting conversation piece, though, like that time I used real blood at a Halloween party and everybody got upset after they drank it and I said it was HIV+. –Jette 08:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say a hate ball, I said a ball of hate. It is pure and unadulterated. If you listen closely you can hear the screams of rage and frustration as my hatrons are exchanged between the densely packed ragons. People like Raine are all that is keeping me from killing you all ^__________^ Misery 09:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Fuck yeah I'm a sedative! — Raine Valen 16:59, 3 Sep 2010 (UTC)

anatomically correct?----Xtreme 12:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Anatomically correct and exactly to scale, I assure you. –Jette 12:38, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Jette, ilu, alrighty? -- Oiseau | 13:38, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you two live pretty close to each other. Go have coffee. — Raine Valen 16:59, 3 Sep 2010 (UTC)

Aria of Sorrow was a great game. It even had a *gasp* Hard Mode! Koda Kumi 12:45, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Was that the one with the whips? — Raine Valen 16:59, 3 Sep 2010 (UTC)

You kids need to listen to more Beatles music or something...you've taken my love topic and twisted it.--*Yasmin Parvaneh* 16:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

If you think this is twisted, check out Jake's, Dandy's or Chaos's talkpage here or on PvX. — Raine Valen 16:59, 3 Sep 2010 (UTC)

<3 for the quote btw.--*Yasmin Parvaneh* 17:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

You get what you pay for. — Raine Valen 17:20, 3 Sep 2010 (UTC)

Now I just feel schizophrenic. --DANDY ^_^ -- 19:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

wat? — Raine Valen 19:29, 3 Sep 2010 (UTC)

Okay, seriosly, wtf? — Raine Valen 19:31, 3 Sep 2010 (UTC)

This is kinda awkward, and hilarious, and awkward! And hilarious <333! --DANDY ^_^ -- 19:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Are any other different people really the same people? — Raine Valen 19:43, 3 Sep 2010 (UTC)

I saw Beatles, "ALL YOU NEED IS LOVE DUN DUN DUN DUN DUNN" --dark chaos 19:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I saw Across the Universe; does that count? — Raine Valen 20:45, 3 Sep 2010 (UTC)

I dislike the Beatles. They are nothing more than icons, what I hate about today's pop music. Koda Kumi 20:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know the Beatles. I dislike pop music in general, though, so I guess we're on the same page. — Raine Valen 21:06, 3 Sep 2010 (UTC)

I think all of you need to read the history of Rock n Roll before you comment on the Beatles and what they did then try and compare them to "pop music" as per your current knowledge of what id defined as "Pop Music". If you knew anything about the Beatles or rock history you would know that John and Paul are the antithesis of today's manufactured pop music. John and Paul determined their own image, wrote/produced/composed their own music and played by their own rules. They outsold every other music artist not because a label made them expressly for cash flow, but because their music is fucking good. They were not the products of "mega producers" like Timbaland, Dr. Dre and William Orbit. Now Capitol/Crapitol records attempted to package them, but John Lennon said "fuck you" and put a photo of him, George, Paul and Ringo dressed in butcher's overalls, accompanied by raw meat and mutilated plastic baby dolls on the cover of "Yesterday and Today". Manufactured pop tarts aren't brave like John...they don't openly speak about Communism or play what they called back then "black music" (the Beatles were inspired by soul music and blues, all Brit artists of the time were). They're icons because not only were they extraordinarily talented and brilliant, not only because their music was unlike anything else since but because they deserve to be. They worked hard, paid their dues, did what they wanted and told record labels to "fuck themselves" when Capitol tried to contrive their music. They changed the fucking world in a real way that Britney and Justin can't and never will.--*Yasmin Parvaneh* 21:20, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

That is a rather cute rant. But then at the end of the day, np. Amon Tobin - One Day In My Garden, and the sky is a garlic. --DANDY ^_^ -- 21:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

ily ♥. In related news, Butcher Pete is prolly the fourth-best song ever. — Raine Valen 22:00, 3 Sep 2010 (UTC)

I never cared much for the Bee-ulls (that's the correct British pronunciation), as I don't think they sing about cocaine and domestic abuse enough. –Jette 02:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you kidding? The whole Sgt. Pepper album is about cocaine and acid.--*Yasmin Parvaneh* 02:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

While I am quite busy bitch-slapping everyone in the face at the moment, I am still entitled to my own opinion. I do not HAVE to like music universally labeled as "good". The Beatles are icons because they knew how to cater to the masses. The provocators of the 60's, the peace-lovers of the 70's... They knew what was going on and played to it. Koda Kumi 16:49, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Except they disbanded by 1970, ups. --Riddle 00:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

MSN

My MSN info has changed.
If you'd like, you can drop me your MSN info here or on IRC (don't email it to me; I won't get it) or on GWs (gl with that) so I can re-add you. Alternatively, you can re-add me with my current account info: Raine.Valen@Live.co.uk
Sorry for the inconvenience. — Raine Valen 1:31, 4 Sep 2010 (UTC)

electricbarb27@hotmail.com nab--*Yasmin Parvaneh* 01:40, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

nou — Raine Valen 1:45, 4 Sep 2010 (UTC)

I lol'd at this

"Michelle says:Moar simon pr0n?"

"Yassie says:yes and its romance not pr0n"

Its funny because its true.--*Yasmin Parvaneh* 02:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Even if it's not porn yet, it's just a matter of time. — Raine Valen 2:09, 4 Sep 2010 (UTC)

Simon's a Scorpio so his pr0n is well worth it. Just read some of his lyrics sometime.--*Yasmin Parvaneh* 04:58, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Name a good song and I'll do that. — Raine Valen 4:59, 4 Sep 2010 (UTC)

http://www.duranduran.com/disco.html most of them are sexual in nature.--*Yasmin Parvaneh* 05:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

do you not know mine

scrub -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 04:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Based on your previous indentation, I assumed that you were asking if I know your Simon LeBon porn. I fixed it for you.

Also: accept, noob. — Raine Valen 4:15, 4 Sep 2010 (UTC)

I may have some of that. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 05:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

NOOOOOOO!

You are breaking the rules! Put that archive back RIGHT NOW! elix Omni 00:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Wha? I thought we could archive things? — Raine Valen 0:11, 5 Sep 2010 (UTC)

You can't modify other users' talk pages without their permission. But I'm actually just giving you grief and I don't think anyone will care. You are technically a bad person though. elix Omni 00:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

God dammit. The one time I try to be genuinely nice, I break policy.

Policy here makes no sense, sometimes. — Raine Valen 0:18, 5 Sep 2010 (UTC)

Then break the policy. Bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy has never brought anything positive. Koda Kumi 09:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

"Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy." - Oskar Wilde

^_______^ --DANDY ^_^ -- 13:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I hereby decree that everyone needs to calm the fuck down. Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ аІiсә ѕνәи Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ 05:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Inspiration

← moved to Feedback talk:User/Raine Valen/Skill suggestions#Inspiration

GW2

Am I the only one here having a hard time getting into mindless-fan-obsession mode with GW2? Dynamic Events and personal story lines are not very amazing from a conceptual standpoint and these are the only things people seem to say when you ask "What's good with GW2". Perhaps they're amazing from a development standpoint but fans aren't developers. It doesn't help that personal story lines have been in existence since pen and paper, either... I think it's just a lot of pretty talk so that Anet/NCSoft can skirt around the issue of wanting to make another MMO that will compete with the current online PC market, rather than wanting to make an actual GW2.

It's very disappointing after they told us that the reason for GW2 is because the GW1 engine was stopping them from realizing their true plans for the game... So then why does GW1 exist in the first place if all they wanted was an MMO? Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ аІiсә ѕνәи Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ 23:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not at all obsessed with GW2 and plan not to buy or even play it, so you're certainly not alone. The reason they had to leave GW1 behind is because, by all accounts (including several by developers) the code base is a mangled, hideous mess with poor implementations and bad ideas all around. Apparently, redesigning it from scratch is somehow less work than fixing what's wrong with GW1 (to be fair, wasting time sells whereas the right thing doesn't). –Jette 00:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

It goes from a PvP based game to a PvE based game. The only reason to call it GW2 is because it includes the creatures from GW1. InfestedHydralisk 00:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Anyone that cared for what Guild Wars was ostensibly about won't care for "Guild Wars" 2:

• "Low level cap means that skill matters than skills!"
  • Oops level 80.
• "Standard equipment means no more GearWars!"
  • "Equipment will have a much greater impact in Guild Wars 2."
  • LOL I CAN HAS POTIONS IN PVP?!
• "Built for PvP from the ground up."
  • Basic, core mechanics that made GW PvP good will be removed.
  • ANet won't even give us any other solid details about PvP.
  • PvE, on the other hand, has gotten a another fucking lovefest.
• "Customizable characters for different situations."
  • Oops no more builds. Disrupting Chop or Agonizing Chop? YOU DON'T HAVE THAT CHOICE, ANYMORE!
• "Various roles promote teamwork."
  • Oops everyone does damage, damage, and more damage now.
  • Also, "most of Guild Wars 2 content will be solo-friendly."
• "No subscriptions!"
  • We kept this part, yay!
  • "We're doing mini-expansions instead of full-blown campaigns."
  • inb4 cash shop items with benefits.

This is why I bought Guild Wars. Why should I get Guild Wars 2, if it features none of those things? — Raine Valen 0:55, 7 Sep 2010 (UTC)

Actually I was playing with a potion system for another pvp game and got it to work very nicely. There's no reason items can't be part of balanced RPG pvp. ~Shard

YOU did. Do you see the difference between you doing it and "No, you can't have an auction house"net doing it? — Raine Valen 2:36, 7 Sep 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, I keep waiting for them to post something about an auction house with a cash shop connected to it. Karate Jesus 03:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Two kinds of cash-shop currency: rubies and diamonds. Rubies are finite in supply and are bid on with real-world money; diamonds are infinite and at a fixed rate. Further, there will be two types of items for each currency: ruby-bid items, which are finite and bid on with rubies; fixed-ruby items, which are technically infinite (technically because rubies, themselves, are finite) and cost fixed amount of rubies; diamond-bid items, including rubies, which are finite and bid on with diamonds; and fixed-diamond items, which are infinite and have a fixed diamond price.

Rubies, due to their nature, can only be bought online. Diamonds, however, can be bought online or in stores, so we can increase our target audience by allowing small children to hoard their lunch money and buy our products. The minimum purchase amount is as small as our overhead allows; this lets us have a very non-threatening minimum price, so people won't be scared out of buying by a large dollar figure.

This cash shop model allows us to suck as much money as possible out of as many people as possible.

I have no soul. — Raine Valen 4:00, 7 Sep 2010 (UTC)

Also, you can bet your life that there will be a cash-shop, and more ridiculous hi-jinks to go along with it. I'm hoping they feel guilty enough from their first run to not overprice certain items this time around... Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ аІiсә ѕνәи Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ 05:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

It is infinitely more likely that they will say "People payed for them before, surely the price is no issue. Let's make it $50." ArenaNet actually has a monopoly that Bill Gates would trade his testicles for- they are the only provider for in-game services, and so they can and will charge anything they like, because people can either buy from them or not buy at all. elix Omni 05:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Here's to hoping someone manages to create private server software for GW2! Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ аІiсә ѕνәи Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ 06:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Your argument doesn't make much sense Raine, the amount of levels don't matter it's how fast it takes you to get through them that matters if it's a grind or not (for all you know, those 80 levels could take the same amount of time as 20 in GW1), Potions can actually be a much more skill intensive form of energy management if everyone is given a limited amount of them in PvP (bad players will misuse their abilities and be forced to blow all their pots quicker, good players will be able to get more out of their abilities and will use their pots sparingly, maybe you have to blow a pot to use your Elite at the exact moment it's useful at the expense of having less energy later on, etc), they haven't said anything about removing prot, and Bodyblocking alone doesn't = amazing PvP. It's a completely different game, there are competitive games way better and more popular than GW1 that don't have any of those 3 things, because there's many ways to create a well balanced game without them. They also haven't said anything about PvP yet because they're still working on it, and I don't know about you but I'd rather wait until they're ready to reveal it when it's polished and good to go instead of them revealing it half done so people can do their quips about how ArenaNet doesn't care about PvP because the info is only half done!1!111 faster. DarkNecrid 04:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

What I was expecting from this project was something more along the lines of an, um, "next-gen" re-imagination of what GW1 was. I expected it to be a boatload of improvements (such as, z-axis, easier to balance skill system, etc.) rather than a completel overhaul into a new (overdone) genre. Jagex is a good example of what this SHOULD have been, as in from Runescape Classic to Runescape 2. IMPROVEMENTS that are not small enough to fit on current engine restraints. And honestly I don't see why GW1 was so bad in itself... It was bad because anet makes bad decisions, and perhaps they were too ambitious/lazy in creating so many skills and being unable to balance them all, but the premise of the game itself was excellent. As I've said before, it seems the only thing we'll have to look forward to once we've gotten done "ooh"ing and "aah"ing at the fancy new graphics, is the lore development... Oh wait they scrapped that too just for the chance to make a dragon prettier than Deathsnout or whatever his name is. It's really sad that even Guild Wars has to suffer from the corporate competition that seems to pervade every aspect of entertainment. Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ аІiсә ѕνәи Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ 05:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

No, the number of levels doesn't matter. However, the time spent to reach max level isn't the only factor that does, either: the other factor is the power difference between minimum and maximum levels. Fighting against higher-level mobs is artificial difficulty; plowing through low-level areas that you've "grown out of" is artificial ease. This means that content will be limited at any point in the spectrum to areas of the corresponding artificial difficulty level; yay for limitations that don't actually mean anything. ArenaNet has already alluded to this level-based limitation explicitly with the existence of their sidekick system, the "energy will permit players to fight in higher-levels" idea, "those videos were of a warrior using Eviscerate against low-level mobs", and in a few other places: I'm not going to assume that they have a well-designed level system, based on these things. My point, in essence, is that having a wider level spectrum is not better than a narrower one; there are a lot of losses (if designed badly) for very few gains. Sure, character advancement is awesome, but "levels" are probably the laziest way to do it.

How is using a potion at a critical moment more skill-intensive than using Ether Signet at the right moment? Essentially, they're giving everyone a finite amount of consumable Ether Signets and basing play on that fact; how is this better than normal energy regeneration? Is it the fact that you get to stock up on them before you have fun? Is it the fact that they will have some associated cost? My point is that an energy system that depends on potions is not better than one that does not. Further, it's not the potion system itself that irks me here, but rather the horrible reasoning behind it: their reasoning shows that they know very little about how Guild Wars is played.

They have said a lot about removing prot: monks don't exist because they "bog down games", "we want to recreate those epic moments [where neither team has a monk in RA]", "we want the game to be more soloable", "no profession should be necessary for success", and on down the line. What's more, out of the skills we've seen so far (4 of 8 professions have been revealed), zero of them are prots. If there were a profession with prots, they would, by nature, become necessary to success (unless ArenaNet suddenly became much better designers?); this conflicts with their mission statement. Therefore, evidence and reasoning suggest that prots will not be featured in Guild Wars 2.

Regarding body blocking: have you ever played melee in a game without body blocking? There's a reason that every warrior worth their salt quarterstepped in Guild Wars: it was a huge strategic point with a very wide spectrum of success. And that's gone now. On the same subject, dchop no longer exists. Magebane Shot. We're pretty sure that mesmers will exist, and I'm betting that they won't have Power Block, Shame, or Diversion, either. All of the points of finesse have been systematically eliminated. Yes, there can be competitive games without them, but are those games better for their absence, or good in spite of it?

If I were a designer, I'd publish information as soon as it were available, from concept outward. That way, I could gain an understanding of which parts of the system people would like, and which they wouldn't. I mean, it's not as if copyrights exist. I would rather have idiots complain that "it's only half done" (no shit?) than have sensible people complain that "it's done and done badly". — Raine Valen 13:35, 7 Sep 2010 (UTC)

You're making the rather silly assumption that MMOs are designed to be fun, instead of designed to be addictive and time-consuming. –Jette 17:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why a team with a business model that does not include subscriptions would give a shit about making an addictive or time-consuming game rather than making a fun one. People buy boxes, not time; so why are they packing the game with time-sellers rather than box-sellers? — Raine Valen 17:35, 7 Sep 2010 (UTC)

Also, ily. — Raine Valen 17:36, 7 Sep 2010 (UTC)

Because we're talking about "No you can't have an auction HURRRR A DURRBY DURR IM A PLATIPUS"Net. –Jette 17:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe this was already asked, but still, why do you care? - Reanimated X 17:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Principle. — Raine Valen 17:43, 7 Sep 2010 (UTC)

Damn. What a shame. At first I was like "Oh, GW2, awesome, they're taking all the good parts, fixing shit and making it better," and then they start announcing everything and it's so disappointing. I suppose I should have seen it coming from anet, but... /sigh. --128.113.152.217 19:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I hope GW2 will have a casino, so we can play a fun and balanced PvP game. Like poker. InfestedHydralisk 19:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I told you... --Boro 06:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

fucking wall of text.. also: here dark chaos 19:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Moving comments

You shouldn't be moving other people's comments into the feedback namespace. You don't have the right to change the licensing of their submissions. -- Wyn talk 18:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

This is one of those times where I'm going to have to disagree with policy:

The only thing that the licensing change could possibly affect is "Golden should be "If target is carrying gold."" — FelixOmni and I'm sure that he was not serious, nor do I believe that he would care if he were, in fact, serious. Barring that, as well, I don't believe that there's any risk of that suggestion being implemented. It's an imaginary issue.

DC's comment has nothing to do with Guild Wars and is not a suggestion at all; it is a personal question directed at me.

If it would make the bureaucracy happy, though, I'd be glad to get statements from both of them confirming that they don't mind the licencing on their respective comments being changed. — Raine Valen 18:33, 7 Sep 2010 (UTC)

I was serious, and I am opening an ArbComm on you. Don't fuck with me. elix Omni 20:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

ffffffffffffffffffffffuuuuuuuuuuuuu— Raine Valen 21:34, 7 Sep 2010 (UTC)

You heard the woman, just because the rules exist you have to stick to them, or else nobody will care at all. Koda Kumi 22:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I was simply pointing out that it really should not be done; I did look at the content moved, and I agree that, in this instance, it's not that big a deal, which is why I did not request it be undone :P I just wanted to make sure you realized that in essence you were doing something that is not only against the rules of GWW, it's a violation of copyright law, and should be avoided. -- Wyn talk 18:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

In the future, I will try my hardest not to get arrested. :> — Raine Valen 14:26, 9 Sep 2010 (UTC)

My archives

Have page views. Who sifts through them and oh, God, why? — Raine Valen 20:21, 7 Sep 2010 (UTC)

Stalkers who want the girl on teh internetz. Karate Jesus 20:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Some people look for old information. Like me. I do that a lot, actually, and I'd prefer it if people would keep their archives in one gigantic file instead of 30 tiny ones so I only have to snag one page to search instead of going through them all. I have some really nice photos of you too, by the way. Thousands of them. –Jette 20:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Misery's archive is a monster. Also, I don't put finding photos of me past you. Thousands, though, probably don't exist (I mean period), so I'm going to have to call BS on that part. ♥ — Raine Valen 13:28, 8 Sep 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't name my archives with a multitude of STD's if I only have one archive :< --DANDY ^_^ -- 07:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

"Death" is a STD now? — Raine Valen 13:28, 8 Sep 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how combing my archives would help with that. ._. — Raine Valen 20:40, 7 Sep 2010 (UTC)

Indexing bots actually. elix Omni 20:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

..? — Raine Valen 20:43, 7 Sep 2010 (UTC)

Search engine spiderbots. elix Omni 20:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I've looked through your archives for something before.--neshot. 21:36, 7 Sep 2010 (UTC)

Oh, God, why? — Raine Valen 21:38, 7 Sep 2010 (UTC)

The edit summary explains why.--neshot. 21:39, 7 Sep 2010 (UTC)

A busy woman like Raine doesn't have time to read your foolish edit summaries. 63.232.208.113 21:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Felix-IP speaks the truth. — Raine Valen 21:45, 7 Sep 2010 (UTC)

Well, I am wounded.--neshot. 21:48, 7 Sep 2010 (UTC)

It's not you; it's me. — Raine Valen 13:28, 8 Sep 2010 (UTC)

I looked at your archive too :>. I was mainly looking for how to format it since I never made a archive on my talk page before :>. --Lania 15:39, 08 September 2010 (UTC)

I archive badly; I just copypaste my talkpage to an archive. I don't even tag them properly. You probably should've picked a better example. :\ — Raine Valen 16:14, 8 Sep 2010 (UTC)

I like your way cause it's simply elegant. It's too much trouble to tag it properly for something so inconsequential. Like I have no patience to make a full fledged menu like Wyn, or Poke's... or even put in a date range. Plus I'm pretty unpopular so my talk page is rather activity-less most of the time. --Lania 17:37, 08 September 2010 (UTC)

At least you are not actively hated like I was a while back. Koda Kumi 09:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I never minded you, I thought you were funny. +1 -- Tha Reckoning 12:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I still hate you. elix Omni 13:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Popularity is overrated. — Raine Valen 14:24, 9 Sep 2010 (UTC)

Says the queen bee. elix Omni 14:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

? — Raine Valen 15:02, 9 Sep 2010 (UTC)

Her regime collapsed years ago. elix Omni 15:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a regime at all. :\ — Raine Valen 15:38, 9 Sep 2010 (UTC)