West of Eden

Lines being drawn. Pass the crayons. [Also, I share the sentiments of the people saying good to see reasoning in public.]

Does this mean our feud is back on? In other news, I raise my offer from 50k to 3 million to anyone who lists all the references. Also, I lol'ed at the treaty name.

It's amazing that the people in the puppet alliances reading this don't get the urge to stick it to NPO afterward.

Good stuff, I read it, I liked it. I'd like to announce that I am offering 50k to anyone who lists all the Matrix and Star Wars references in this text.

He is liking the attention he's getting, that's why he's still at it. No sane person can actually believe the stuff he says.

Did you even bother to ask him for reps before attacking? Judging by this thread - no. What does this have to do with Vox I do not know, he's wasn't in Vox.

Doesn't NPO know how to ask for reparations? In my time, they at least bothered to do that before attacking.

This thread isn't particularly representative because there are like 5 people reading it total. Sometimes it's not clear who wins a debate because of the lack of people participating (ie, you need a sample size of more than 3). Sometimes it's quite clear like your thread where the entire CN came out to tell you that you are wrong. I don't care about your argument regarding Voxism - you may notice this from my lack of comments on it. I came into the thread to point out that you were clearly lying in a post where you said you were not out to destroy or discredit Vox. We go round and round. Vox does have something to do with this thread - A) The theory is called Voxism, B) It was written by a member of Vox. As I have already said, your goal is to destroy or discredit Vox and one sure fire way to do this is by attacking its members and the papers we put out (in this case MegaAros' Voxism). You can keep on screaming you're an objective scientist and you only seek the truth but you're not fooling anyone. A movie isn't a debate. A debate is when two people discuss a certain topic. There is only one way to judge who won a debate - that would be what the public thinks. There are rare cases when one person will admit he won and one will admit he lost but debates truly won based on public opinion. This does not make the person who won the debate correct, it means that he convinced the majority of people that he was correct. How would you judge who won or who lost a debate? OOC: One example of the public clearly deciding who won or lost a debate are presidential debates with the polls that come out.

If 51% of the Sovietstanis were to suddenly start believing in creationism right after a debate on it, it would mean that the creationism side won the debate. Thank you, please drive through. The victor of a debate is indeed chosen by a vote, although that does not necessary make the victor correct, it does indeed mean he won the debate. You can write essays on the subject all you want but it will not change this simple truth. Oh, I am sorry for getting your argument right......oh wait, should I really be apologizing for that? I think it goes more like this: Vladimir makes a claim West of Eden points out that Vladimir is lying in his claim Therefore Vladimir's is a liar [and due to repeated lies, nobody takes anything he says seriously but that's another story] Logically, to mend #3, you need to mend #2 - ie, stop claiming you're an objective "scientist" with no agenda. PS: You may note that I never said your argument is false because you're lying through your teeth in half of it, that would border on an ad-hom. I simply said you're lying.

Oh, I see. Thanks for the clarifications. They're pretty bad at pretending I'd note, how are you going to pretend it's blue when there is a known puppet master that's not even on blue in it.

Think that's a typo and he meant "no threat." That said, it's funny that NpO doesn't know NPO policy anymore since NPO is in the bloc. And last comment, what is NPO doing in a blue bloc? Anyway......

I know this, I said that this was going to be his argument a few posts up. But this is merely semantics, his point was obviously that Vladimir has never lost an argument. If he wants to play semantics, he can show me where it is that I said that he said that Vladimir never lost a debate. Because just like he never says that Vlad never lost explicitly, I never say that he said Vlad did explicitly either. But again, he's playing semantics to distract from the issue. Indeed, the most popular side is not necessarily the correct one. However who won a debate and who lost is not an exact science, it's an opinion. And thus we can judge who won and who lost based on what the majority says. I believe you are trying to say that I am using ad-homs (a favorite tactic of NPO). Thing is, the credibility of the person does have something with the argument, especially when your argument includes obvious lies. If I claimed I was Moo and then immediately said I am disbanding NPO, nobody would believe me. This is akin to nobody believing (myself included) anything you say after you claim that your goal is not to destroy or discredit Vox. I will repeat advice already offered - stop inserting obvious lies into your arguments if you want anyone to take them seriously.

Oh, right and you never implied that Vlad hasn't lost a debate here: Keep on trying, maybe you'll be successful at distracting a few people from Vlad's non-existent credibility.

Nintenderek, he's going to argue that he doesn't actually say that Vladimir has not lost an argument but only that he's never seen this happen (despite reinforcing this with "I've known him for five years [so I think if it happened I'd know]"). This is the doublespeak they like to do to confuse the issue. Corinan, if you're going to play semantics, show me exactly where I said that you said Vladimir has never lost an argument. Go ahead. Read what I said a little slower this time. We can play semantics all day long but it won't recover Vladimir's credibility. You can't keep saying "I am a totally neutral scientist investigating a truth" while your work shows incredible bias and hope that nobody notices.

Ah, there we go. Now both of you have also discredited yourself. You people seriously need to stop making statements that we all know to be false. Vladimir has never lost an argument? Perhaps you need to look at his essay threads more. Here is his last one. See how many stars it has? Practically the entire world, Vox or not, came out to argue that he is full of it in that thread. Dozens of alliances. If you look at his last several threads, they've all had a significant amount of people arguing against him (pretty much everyone except NPO) and none have had a rating higher than 3, most of them have been 2. If you haven't noticed, that's not just Vox Populi's response, it's everyone's.

This is all true, or mostly. Certainly any post I make with regards to Vladimir is me trying to discredit him but that's only because he's already discredited himself. Difference is, I don't fill my arguments with 'I have no agenda and I am just a humble scientist investigating a truth' and the countless other mumbo jumbo lies he does.

While you may be sarcastic, you've summed up my argument very nicely. This also addresses Vladimir's last post - any claim made by him with regards to Vox or any Vox related subject is attempt to discredit and destroy either Vox or Vox members, which is the same thing. I anyone truly believes Vladimir has no agenda and his posts are merely "inquiries".... well, hello.

Alright Vladimir. You've convinced me. Your "query" was not at all seeking to destroy or discredit Vox and you have no agenda at all. Oh wait, no. Whether we're talking about the one post you made (which is what you want to do) or your overall agenda, everything I said remains the same. The only goal of any of your posts in this thread is as previously stated, to destroy or discredit Vox. You can keep denying it until your face turns blue but I think you take the CN public to be a bunch of idiots if you think you'll get anywhere with such a ridiculous claim.

We're so irrelevant that even though we post a thread which basically has nothing to discuss several dozen responses are made.

Oh good. I like how you quoted everything I said so that the reader could judge for himself....oh wait. Here is a quote from you "I have no idea why you keep telling me to use the issue to "destroy Voxism," as I have made abundantly clear that this was never my query's intention" As I said, Vladimir: 'I don't want to destroy [or discredit] Vox' - ya right. Keep repeating it and pray someone will believe you but I just doubt it. Our IQs really are above 20, really - whatever you may think, I am not lying about that. I don't even know what your objection is because I'll be honest, as soon as I saw that "I am totally neutral and my intent isn't to discredit or destroy Vox" statement, I just went back to ignoring everything you said. My advice here is that if you stopped using obviously disingenuous statements, maybe we could take your arguments more seriously.

No, really? And then you put it in an even more dramatic fashion Vladimir, a scientist discussing objectively? (All your words.) As someone studying science, I almost feel offended. Vladimir, scientist and especially objectivity don't belong in the same sentence. If you and Vladimir stopped putting obviously disingenuous statements (Vladimir: 'I am not trying to destroy Vox') in your arguments, maybe people would take them more seriously.

Vladimir, why don't you just stop insulting the intelligence of all fine people reading this. Your goal isn't to "destroy Voxism" and you're merely "investigating"? Good grief, do you think anyone believes this ****? I realize you probably think you're the smartest person on planet Bob, but our IQs are above 20 - keep this fact in mind.

While I respect the opinion of my friends and I am glad they've taken their time to respond to this with full blown dissertations (coughMegaArosIloveYoucough), I personally am not that deeply into whatever the OP may think Voxism is. There is a simple truth to why I am in Vox. We believe in justice and we do not like what NPO and their might makes right pals have done with the place. Now justice is a loaded word but I think any reasonable person can agree that NPO is not it and the vast majority of nations can also agree that we are tired of might makes right. And while NPO may attempt to cloud the issue with what they call "political theory," I would claim it is really all quite simple, almost everyone reading this can agree that either NPO should be severely weaked or put to an end.

I smell foreshadowing there.

As a server admin for a web hosting company, I approve Needs more stuff, but good tips. With regards to cPanel, almost any control panel will due really unless it's proprietary in my opinion (you'll see something like "Our proprietary control panel is bla bla bla") - I much prefer cPanel to dreamhost's panel but I only have limited experience with the later. Point being, I wouldn't worry about the control panel much. Well, there is Fantastico, you do mention it. That does pretty much do things "magically," at least for phpBB and SMF - fill out a few fields and it will install the board for you (you will need to transfer the database yourself though) - no uploading required. You need a host that has Fantastico though, but most hosts that use cPanel do (it'll be mentioned in the features/options section). With suggestions - talk more about transferring database, mention phpmyadmin to restore if they have a database copy.