User talk:Honorable Sarah/5

Userboxes

 * When have to ever beaten me to an edit! /indignant :D Defiant Elements (talk ~ contribs) 02:20, 29 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Talk:Secondary professions for an Elementalist ;P --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 02:29, 29 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Grrr... I still say I'm faster even if you did beat me once :) Defiant Elements (talk ~ contribs) 02:30, 29 March 2007 (CDT)
 * then i should be glad you don't get a vote :P :P --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 02:31, 29 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Ah GuildWiki, it is proof positive that anarchy does work :) Defiant Elements (talk ~ contribs) 02:33, 29 March 2007 (CDT)
 * well ordered chaos is the watchmaker's grease of the universe. --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 02:34, 29 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Are you a proponent of deterministic chaos theory a.k.a Chaos Theory? Well... not so much proponent as.... well, I can't really think of the word.  You last phrase just made me think of Chaos theory.  Defiant Elements  (talk ~ contribs) 02:40, 29 March 2007 (CDT)
 * i'm a big fan of chaos, but i'm more interested in emergant behevior, which is really the natural implementation of chaos ideals on a controlled system. but i think you mean fluidic selection, where the expected result of an observed experiment selects the final quantum state from otherwise equil probabilities. --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 02:47, 29 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Hmmm... you are among the maybe three people I have ever actually managed to have a semi-reasonable conversation about Quantum behavior (not that I know a terribly large amount on the subject, just more than most people I talk to). As I said before, my friends think I'm nuts.  Glad to have met you.  Defiant Elements  (talk ~ contribs) 02:48, 29 March 2007 (CDT)


 * and one for you:

--Honorable Sarah 03:01, 29 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Alright, you win, that one is just excellent... in fact... *steals userbox* Defiant Elements  (talk ~ contribs) 03:03, 29 March 2007 (CDT)

Profession guides
Hey, I was wondering whether I could get a little clarification on your vote. The purpose was to better understand what others thought and I wasn' quite sure what you were getting at. Thanks. Defiant Elements (talk ~ contribs) 23:33, 29 March 2007 (CDT)
 * thusly done --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 23:51, 29 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Just saw, thanks. Defiant Elements  (talk ~ contribs) 23:51, 29 March 2007 (CDT)

Anti-Offical-Wiki-User-B-ox-
Yeh, can I borrow your anti-offical-wiki userbox? Solus  01:43, 30 March 2007 (CDT)
 * do Template:User_NoOfficalWiki instead! --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 23:17, 30 March 2007 (CDT)

Wait..
Proficient in british english.. so wouldn't you be honourable sarah no honorable sarah?? Not a fifty five 02:10, 30 March 2007 (CDT)

Guildwiki is a American based site, must be used to using Honorable (like favored/favoured). Gets to me as well :) Solus   02:13, 30 March 2007 (CDT)
 * been there done that --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 23:12, 30 March 2007 (CDT)

User:Defiant Elements/Build Collaboration
In case you're interested. Defiant Elements (talk ~ contribs) 23:16, 30 March 2007 (CDT)

Just so you know... the idea is for posting new builds. Defiant Elements (talk ~ contribs) 23:23, 30 March 2007 (CDT)
 * i know, but i've been scared of losing those builds. kebosh them if you feel it's right out. --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 23:24, 30 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Whatever, you can keep them there. The idea is for any kind of build collaboration, and, while it is my userpage, I would like to feel that as BrianG put it, I am a "benevolent dictator," so, if you want them there, then they shall remain there.  Just so you know though, the nowiki tags make them pretty impossible to read.  Defiant Elements  (talk ~ contribs) 23:25, 30 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Lazy was sarah --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 23:27, 30 March 2007 (CDT)
 * I am going to remove the links at least until they look presentable. Defiant Elements  (talk ~ contribs) 23:52, 30 March 2007 (CDT)

Build:Me/D Extended Thorns
As I try and improve my builds with other users suggestions, moving them to untested seems like the only way to do that. Would you reconsider your vote if conviction was placed on the bar? Giving the Mesmer 84+ Armor, I think that's easily enought to stay on the front lines shorter. Any other suggestions would be great. Solus  03:04, 1 April 2007 (CDT)
 * ya, that'd deffiniatly make the foes a bit less interested. i'll change my vote on that condition --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 03:04, 1 April 2007 (CDT)

It's on there. Lol as long as I don't give Koss/Goren a armor boost, in theroy I won't be the target :) Good old' foolish A.I
 * modding stuff-ness now. --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 03:11, 1 April 2007 (CDT)

Radiant/Survivor.. Always :) Solus   03:13, 1 April 2007 (CDT)

Guid timeshares
So I noticed you have been in plenty of guilds in the past. What's with that? They all turned out bad or you just didn't like what they had to offer? I'm just surprised about all the guid jumping for someone as informed and decent as you come off to me (no, I'm not hitting on you, I'm normally a nice person is all). --  Vallen Frostweaver  16:07, 2 April 2007 (CDT)
 * it's not so much jumping, as surviving. see User:Honorable_Sarah/Rantful --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 22:58, 2 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Funny, I noticed that yesterday but had to go before I got the chance to read it. That's kinda sad.  Are you always in aggressive guilds like that?  You might have better luck with a laid back one with an alliance of similar people.  Though they don't always have max resources you may have better luck.  But then again, you may have already tried this. --[[Image:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG]]  Vallen Frostweaver  07:49, 3 April 2007 (CDT)
 * prior to [trtl], i was the guild leader of [Grse]. i was very laid back, and as it turned out, that was the problem. my officers started fights with eachother behind my back, and it split the guild. prior to that, i was an officer with [PHOE], and i was the soft-spoken and consensus-oriented harmonizer of the group, that guild split over an officer disobeying the guild will, and the guild leader forgiving him unquestioningly. prior to that i was an officer with [GCG], that guild died of inactivity, as far as i know. prior to that i was an officer in [Bdub], that guild split when Duke Bandit and Eve Pendragon, the two most active officers, went seperate ways, and i followed eve to GCG. i really can't win for loosing. you might look in the delete logs for User:Honorable Sarah/The tragedy of the founding, it used to tell the whole story of the fall of Rise of the Silver Phoenix. --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 23:45, 3 April 2007 (CDT)
 * I might at that.--[[Image:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG]]  Vallen Frostweaver  07:43, 4 April 2007 (CDT)

B/P build clean-up
I disagree with some of your clean up actions in 2 places and would like to discuss them. 1) A critical barrager will not always outdamage a ranger as the bleeding will not stack from subsequent other Crit Barragers and a R/P with GftE! can add similar crits to the entire group (and more R/P can add even more crits). 2) The R/Rt variants I have seen in 9 out of every 10 different PuGs on average I've been in (which is quite a lot). Usually it's the Splinter Barrager but when they come along other R/Rt have changed to a recuperation barrager. I believe your removal of this variant was incorrect as it can dessimate a mob very fast if in an organized group that knows what splinter weapon does.--  Vallen Frostweaver  07:43, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
 * great, put them in as a coherent variant of Build:R/any General Barrager. as they were, they were rambling conjecture. --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 02:01, 5 April 2007 (CDT)

User:81.104.239.20
Looked like more of a not knowing the wiki thing than an attempt to disrupt the wiki through vandalism. --Xasxas256 05:36, 7 April 2007 (CDT)
 * looked like a blaintant image replace to me, but that's why the policy requires two people to look at the offense. --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 12:50, 7 April 2007 (CDT)