> > > > The way I see it, if the primary character gives an item or two to his
> > > > secondary character (without camping explicitly to give it to the second
> > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > > Yes, and we all know you can get rubicite without camping
> > > explicitly for it. *snicker*
> >
> > You sure have a knack for tacking things out of context and twisting them
> > around, John. Even if it's only in jest.
>
> *I'm* taking things out of context? When this thing first

I was just pointing out your selective underlining. It implied that he
camped just to give it to another char, when he clearly said he didn't.
Most likely you were just kidding, but I was pointing out your excellent
skill in doing what I said.

> started, I leveled the charge that harvest-twinkers who camped
> at a site to get extra items or items they couldn't use for
> their other lesser characters were bad for the game. Then all
> of a sudden three or four people started saying I was wrong
> because they're twinking with items they're not using anymore
> with their main characters. I don't know if I was too vague
> in my original statements, or if these people are grasping at
> whatever straws they can to justify twinking.

I think you probably were too vague -- seeing as multiple people
(including me) have always seemed to treat this as a discussion on
twinking in general, not camping just to twink other chars. The topic of
specifically camping to twink other characters only came up yesterday,
as far as I could tell.

So, overall, looks like just a misunderstanding due to communication
difficulties. =)

Anyway, to summarize, yes I agree camping just to twink other characters
is bad. However I do not think that passing down old equipment or
equipment you got but couldn't use it bad.

---
Jesse <j@...>
http://www.lumiere.net/