(05-17-2017, 05:50 PM)Hell Rell Wrote: I believe you made a statement about Nick's murderous children killing wesen because they were adhering to their Grimm heritage (or influence in Diana's case). I did ask you to clarify earlier. If you didn't mean that I'll change my statement.
I believe you were wrong and misread my statements. This was the only comment I could find and it had nothing to do with Diana and Kelly:
Quote:Is the solution to promote that legacy and let grimms kill indiscriminately just to support a legacy that has not been proven to be beneficial?
The statement I made about Nick's murderous children was to Mrtrck:
Quote:You were the one who argued with me about Nick's murderous children killing wesen because they're sticking to ther grimm heritage
You were wrong on that one as well.
Quote:It appeared in another post where you were equating what Diana and Kelly did in the epilogue to Adalind honoring the contract and selling Diana. It had something to do with both of these things being a part of their heritage.
The above post is very vague so I'll address the point I think you're making. I was merely pointing out grimm and hexenbiest legacies and heritages. I wasn't stating that the grimm heritage equals the hexenbiest heritage. I don't know why it would be interpreted as such. Killing wesen is part of the grimm heritage just as magical contracts are part of the hexenbiest heritage.
I don't get why stating Adalind should have adhered to the contract somehow equates to a major assault on her character. All I was questioning was the validity of her word and her ability to stick to a bargain she made. A bargain in which she took the biest spirit and paid nothing for it in return.
The best way to frustrate a cyberbully is to ignore him.