bentflame | (no subject)

Turning a former disadvantage into an advantage certainly sounds like elimination to me.

I wouldn't call it elimination. He still has the disadvantage. If he is to lose his temper when not in combat or becomes enraged too early in battle, he suffers for it. But the fact remains that the advantages of having the flaw and understanding it outweigh removing it completely.

He can't eliminate that part of it?

If he truly wanted to, I suppose he could. But to learn to control even a part of his anger would lessen the effectiveness of the rage as a whole. The real question you're asking is, should he seek his own unique strength and master that, or should he search for a generic universal strength? I believe you're the type who prefers to have a universal strength, but that can never be totally mastered.

I can control myself, but I'm not a worse fighter because of it. Your argument is lacking, at least when you try to apply it to me.

I'm not implying that you should lose your self control. In fact, from what I've seen of you already, that would likely be the worst step you could take. I am saying that it is better to consider carefully personal specialties and flaws, then create an individual type of strength. Rather than reaching for an all encompassing strength that cannot be fully achieved.

I'm curious as to why you think that can't be achieved. Personal experience?

Quite the opposite. Of all the people I know, I am the person most able to reach a strength you could call 'complete strength', but that is due having first realised an individual strength which can be applied to reaching for that. But you, on the other hand, are neglecting personal strength to reach for complete strength. I have no doubt that a woman of your conviction and confidence could possess an individual strength far superior to any universal strength you could ever achieve.

Don't be a fool. I have both.

Likely yes, you do. But the difference between what they are, your goal to make them grow to and what you can actually achieve are vastly different. A shame. People with true potential are so rare. I would so love to see you find your own strength.
['So I could take it from you at its peak. That would be so amusing, it'd be worth letting you live.']

You think they're so different, but they're not. I know myself far better than you do.

That's a distinct possibility, but then, it's also perfectly probable that I've been completely correct about everything I've said. I've never even see you fight or perform something you would say fits under your specialties, so I am merely extrapolating what I can from your personality. And for all I know, your mannerisms are in fact very good fakes and you've actually achieved a personal strength. Maybe your personal strength is giving people the impression you've not found one.

What an interesting idea.

My mannerisms? Explain.

A mannerism is a characteristic and often unconscious mode or peculiarity of action. You possess all the classical mannerisms of a person who believes they are a self crafted person who stands at the height of the world, but in actual fact has been crafted by someone else. A preoccupation with generic strength over personal strength, a search to eliminate all flaws, your particular attempts to control the flow of conversation. I would hazard a guess that at least one of your parents is deeply involved in your daily life.

(He's cheating, by the way. Since he met Ursa he's been looking up the Fire Nation royals.)

I know what a mannerism is. All you've done is extrapolate, and come to the wrong conclusions because of it.

OOC: XDD

It could have been a term you don't have in your world. I decided to play it safe.
Naturally you would believe my conclusions to be wrong. That is one of your mannerisms as well-a certainity of self.

Of course it is, but not to a fault.

Surely you are aware that a person with a deluded certainity of self would say exactly that.

(AND DON'T CALL ME SHIRLEY)

That doesn't mean that everyone who says it is deluded.

OOC: AIRPLAAAAAANE

True, but it does mean your position is particularly difficult to defend.

No, it means you're deliberately trying to make a point that is technically impossible to disprove so that you can tell yourself that you've won.

It's quite easy to disprove, actually. It's just beyond the scope of your type of person to realise what it is.

I'm sure you think silence is the same as implying you don't need to respond.

It doesn't.

My facial expression was my response, actually.

(no subject)

Re: [Anon]

[Anon]

Re: [Anon]

[Anon]

Re: [Anon]

[Anon]

Re: [Anon]

[Anon]

Re: [Anon]

[Anon]

Re: [Anon]

[Anon]

Re: [Anon]

[Anon]

Re: [Anon]

[Anon]

Re: [Anon]

[Anon]

Re: [Anon]

[Anon]

Re: [Anon]

[Anon]

Re: [Anon]

[Anon]

Re: [Anon]

[Anon]

Re: [Anon]

[Anon]

Re: [Anon]

[Anon]

Re: [Anon]

[Anon]