RevolutionaryRebel

Funny you mention that, it's been about four years since the last good Polaris thread. :popcorn:

In a game of politics, it is the Lannisters that nobody wants to listen to because they're not germane to discussions of actual worth, like that of the New Sith Order, where this waste of time has been taking place.

One can easily argue that bringing back terms is a far more revanchist move. In any case, now we know there isn't going to be another big war for at least 3-4 months. IRON can sleep soundly for a little while longer.

Please detail why we should encourage yet another thread derail by individuals whose comments hardly deserve a response as it is.

He isn't. You won't. Speaking of, how come Ultra Alliance hasn't come to your defence against these here rogue attacks? So disappointing.

Personally, I am not amazed at the interest people have in attaining God Tier. I mean, you get all sorts of cool powers and fancy uniforms. :smug:

"Oh, those blasted folk, refusing to follow the domino trend! We'll force them to do what we want and peace out like we want them to! Yeah, we're totally the good guys and they're the only ones engaging in propaganda in the OWF!"

I like the cut of this man's jib.

I like how the Plan B thread became the Nordreich thread despite a distinct lack of treaties between them - and something tells me they wouldn't mind keeping it that way. Your estimation of NoR's tenacity is baffling. No iteration of NoR has ever signed a separate peace agreement from whatever coalition they were part of. I think their disbanding (a la NoV) is almost as likely to occur.

Calling people footsoldiers when you have none simply makes you ever more the fool.

I've never been outside my consulate there, so you probably have a better understanding of them than me. Can you confirm or deny if this is an accurate depiction of GOONS?

I think GGA was a better demonstration of successful revolutions. If by 'revolution' you mean 'coup' that is.

House Baratheon stocks recovered after a series of losses today.

What? You don't like Tolstoy?

If I wanted to read a long-winded piece of fiction, I would make a start on Tolstoy. Given you have failed to cease advertising your wares to those that do not want it, I see no reason to encourage you.

*The early modern period sacking (depends how you define it tbqh). In order to precede a !@#$posting series on negative vs positive rights in this here thread, I invite you to stop (seriously, nobody cares who has the last word on the owf) for everyone's sake. 1. mlyp 2. The way you speak of lulz, order, and stability is pretentious. 3. It is the opinion of the Party that words cannot define anything; things simple are one way or another. 4. You do. When you speak of revolution, more important to you, your type revolution. 1. lol k 2. The validity of an argument is not normally judged by its "pretentious" quality. 3. (ooc: Your party's opinion is obviously wrong.) 4. Neither myself nor the Party has stated that "single words or ideas can be the sole bastion of hope and progress in our political realm." (ooc: to quote chairman Mao "If we have a correct theory but merely prate about it, pigeonhole it and do not put it into practice, then that theory, however good, is of no significance.") Okay, here we go. 1 is moot so I'll take it from there. 2. Pretentious is just scratching the surfce. You seek to apply concepts, theories and opinions without giving proper regard for the intricacies of the world we reside in; building an argument based on generalisations, opinions and conjecture is not just pretentious, but misleading and your constant trumpeting of your opinions as 'fact' is delusional. 3. Think less 'words' and more 'labels'. Your "analysis" (read; perspective) is narrow. You approach a systemic world as if everything were divided categorically. Labels are meaningless in themselves, other than as they are perceived and how they shape our actions. It tends itself to a fallacious worldview via the generalisations (and subsequent loss of detail) it encourages. Ergo, labels are a poor basis for any supposedly rational platform. "We don't need no stinkin' definitions" is pretty much the Entropic platform anyhow. 4. Actions speak louder than words, in this case. Your claims regarding meaningless buzzwords like 'order', 'stability' (et al.) form the crux of your platform, ergo these words and how you choose to define them hold primacy in your dogma. Please do not ingratiate this effort to stem the shitposting tide. I'm not here for silly arguments about meaningless things; you have your own thread; if nobody else wants to talk about you, too bad.

Ah, fresh meat! I'll check you out sometime later. Good luck. E: you will probably want a forum though - that, and an irc channel.

the pixels are always brighter on the other side; I do admit being caught up in hopes and dreams sometimes, but I try not to focus on them too much

He demands to be taken seriously, while also demanding the end of this clearly superior party. It's not hard to 'defeat' a suicide bomber.

I was considering the matter on more of an alliance-wide level. You aren't doing too bad for such a young nation, but you are definitely trying too hard OWF-wise and probably have unrealistic expectations of its content. When in doubt, post less. AE hasn't been 'rolled' thus far. Of course, it hasn't been around THAT long, but compared to most of the new alliances of 2013, we're doing very well, thank you.

Cancel your treaty with TTE and maybe we can rectify that.

Lines being drawn. WD C&G in ensuring none of your members are left hanging in the conflict. Time to prepare for the next dogpile; though hopefully you'll be the one delivering it (for a change).

Cybernations; where the rebels are authoritarian, the reactionaries are anarchists and delusions of grandeur continue to intensify.

I like an orderly disorder. Two thumbs up.

Team Franz is blasting off again?