User blog comment:William Brawlmaritn/Faults of the English & It's King/@comment-3112181-20150806164242

Time for a classic Jerry breakdown

"As most of you know, I have fully supported the Lord Marshal of the East India Company, Samuel Harrington. Of which I have no regrets of doing so, even now. Allow me to educate the people on this wikia what really happened instead of the twisted truth and Ignoreant lies of you're Prime Minister Johnathan Goldtimbers, and King John Breasly."

Right out of the bag, a classic "let me educate u" Pearson cliche. Well done. You're officially a fruit. I admire your loyalty. I really do. However, when you use the terms "twisted truth" and "ignorant lies", you know you're being fed a one-sided story.

"I will be listing below what REALLY happened  and what you're prime Minister had to say about It in a recent skype call. Which will also conclude to my public announcement of my support for  KING WILLIAM  YELLOWBONES TO BE KING OF ENGLAND ........"

Italics, bold, caps, and underlined! You mean business! This suspense is killing me.

"Samuel Harrington being a founding father for the EITC, alongside with Pablo, Is now considered by you're Prime Minister and King, "Removed from office" . Why? Summerizing what you're Prime Minister said, he considers him to be "Not Loyal to the King".  "

Yeah. Everything in that is true. I don't know why you keep using parentheticals, implying that "EVERYTHING HERE IS FAKE". Samuel was the founder of the EITC. I don't think anyone is denying that. However, that doesn't give him any special abilities or privileges, and it certainly doesn't mean he could rebel against John as many times as he did (I was part of some of these rebellions, true, but even after I converted to the side of light Samuel continued his crusades of stubbornness). Besides, the pure fact that he continues to claim to be Lord Marshal rather than suck up his pride and own up to the fact he's lost this one further deems him a traitor unfit for our ranks.

"Let us review what REALLY happened, in summary."

GET ON WITH IT ALREADY. Also "review" and "summary" mean the same thing.

" While KING John Scurvysmythe was in power,"

What?

"Samuel Harrington had formally requested for the East India Trading Company to be lifted from the royal charter of which it was funded on."

So he admits that the EITC is indeed bounded by its royal founding.

"To which the current king of agreed to, thus privatizing the East India Company from Great Britain."

So by this point you just sound like that crazed Republican down the street who isn't convinced Obama really won office: "THANK THE GOOD LORD FOR PRESIDENT ROMNEY, PASSIN' LEGISLATION GETTIN' ALL THEM MEXICANS OFF THE STREETS AND THEM JEWS BACK IN JEWLAND". Point is, no one recognised John Scurvysmythe's claim to the throne... not even you. Therefore, nothing he says or said has any legitimacy in this community, so this argument is so far a very bad one.

"Therefore to this year currently, Samuel Harrington does indeed NOT answer to the King of England and is not a subject of the crown,"

Both very accurate claims.

"also recoginizing that the East India Company  cannot be under Great Britain's control whether or not you pass an act of parliment to do so."

Wrong. John Scurvysmythe isn't going to help you here. The Company (historically speaking) was indeed allowed a certain degree of autonomy, as I explained in my blog, but was still subject to control by the Crown. FURTHERMORE, the British government DID fully subjugate the Company, through, you guessed it, an act of parliament. So historically speaking we're right, and role-play speaking you have absolutely nothing going for you except for a pretender king that I had never even heard about until now.

"You would need an formal agreement and acceptance from the owner of the East India Company which Great Britain DOES NOT HAVE, in this Roleplay."

That's not how it works. And even if it was, we do have "an formal agreement" from the Director of the EITC, that being Nate.

"Therefore the argument over Lord Harrington being a subject of the King and not taking orders or commands does not make him Loyal to the King but rather the question should be is "Has Samuel commited an act that would be treasonous to Great Britain?"  The answer is simply No. He hasn't."

My head hurts from this one. But for the record, yes, he has committed an act of treason to Britain. Several. And now so have you! :D

" Johnathan Goldtimbers had also replied that "The King can do what he wants". Which Is pityful excuse for a dying era."

???

Are you aware of how 18th Century European monarchies worked? Sure, we're heading into the Age of Constitutionalism, but in 1748 the King still has 95% of the say on all matters. Now if it was 1848, you'd be completely right.

"He had also mentioned that another reason they do want him in power is because he had started and ignited the main cause for the tensions between England and Spain. Not true."

Oh boy, William's playing the Pronoun Game! Assuming "he" is Johnny, "him" is Samuel, and the second "he" is also Samuel, then yes, that's very true. And Samuel's own recount of the Company's history supports that. Leon and Samuel butted heads over the Co Black Guard, and Pearson was eventually brought in to the fight as an ally of Leon. Therefore the conflicts with Spain originated in Samuel's grounds, not Britain's.

"After sometime of verbal hearsay,"

OH DEAR, HAVE YOU SWALLOWED A DICTIONARY?

"we invited Pearson to the call who elaborated on the fact that  actually Benjamin Macmorgan and Andrew Mallace were the cause due to some fued. Pearson said here and I quote "Samuel was not the catalyst of war between Spain and Its entities and England". "

Yes, because Pearson has always been a reliable, non-bias, trustworthy source of information. The same way the Catholic Encyclopoedia's article on abortions is, no doubt. I don't understand how Benjy and Mallace could have possibly started the whole thing, but hey, I was inactive that year, so I'm not one to talk.

""Because he's not popular". What I asked as to why he would not allow Samuel Harrington to be in power In his eyes. If we choose our leaders on upon popularity and not actual previous contributions, then we're just as unwise as those who gained power that way. But in this case you could say the contributions are Samuel has done is filled with fallacies and twisted truths. Due to the King of England and Johnathan Goldtimbers"

Roughly 60% of this paragraph is gibberish and doesn't make much sense. But for some part, you're right Brawlmartin. We shouldn't turn this into a popularity contest. What Goldtimbers meant, though, was that Samuel is no longer popular in the eyes of those running Britain. The reason why? HIS REBELLIONS.

"The Act of Parliaments: Concerns toward the EITC, and Subjugation of the EITC are invalid. The excuses and claims to have Lord Marshal Samuel Harrington removed from office of the EITC are invalid."

Everything you just listed is very valid.

Both you and Samuel are under this wrongful impression that Britain at this point is far more capitalistic than it really is. This isn't 2015, it's the 18th Century. I'm well aware of the definition of a joint stock company and the independence its mother country would allow it. However, what you guys aren't aware of is what dependence it does have. The Company is not a nation in its own right. It and everyone in it is still a subject of the British crown, thus the King and Parliament has all final says in Company matters and reserves the right to subjugate, which, ultimately, they did.

"Johnathan Goldtimbers and King John Breasly are a dying breed of power."

Even though we have the most active RP base in the POTCO community. But hey, you and Samuel make a very intimidating army of two.

"You're King is inactive"

Wrong.

"and literally is not apart of this roleplay anymore."

Wrong.

"The corruption found within this roleplay directed to the instances of Harrington and etc is enourmous. Pearson knows this as well."

Ahhh yes, once again the all-knowing Pearson the Wise holds his enlightened sway of virtue and moral over the very community who hates his guts. You have convinced us, William.

"I believe King William Yellowbones will wipe the corruption clear from It's smoke early ignited from a time ago, starting with you're King, John Breasly."

Wait wait wait wait wait.

You have spent the ENTIRE blog trying to discredit Breasly and Goldtimbers using historical inaccuracies and baseless role-play assumptions, without once mentioning Yellowbones's name. Congrats, you've been promoted from crazed Republican down the street to crazed Republican running Donald Trump's hate ads: "KING BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA HAS PUSHED OUR NATIONS INTO THE DIRTY CLUTCHES OF THE MUSLIM PEOPLE AND TAKEN OUR GUNS AWAY, GIVING THEM TO THE SLEAZY JEWS TO USE AGAINST US. AND THATS WHY DONALD TRUMP SHOULD BE PRESIDENT." William, I know you better than this. You're a smart guy. If you're going to make an argument for Yellowbones to become king, you have to, y'know, make an argument for Yellowbones to become king. Simply saying "he's an alternative to John" won't cut it for most people.

William, this is such a shame. You had such promise, and we had big plans for you in future. As I said, you're a smart guy, but even still you have chosen the losing side. Your disloyalty to Britain and the mistakes you have made will sadly not be forgotten. I expected better... Such a pity.