jerdge
-
Posts
5,860 -
Joined
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Blog Comments posted by jerdge
-
-
Quite obviously Pizza Hut and Dominos are not a thing around here (Italy): www.pizzahut.it and www.dominos.it are actually up for sale...
I tried Pizza Hut decades ago in Great Britain and maybe 4-5 years ago in France and in both cases it wasn't really that bad (although nothing comparable with a true pizzeria). A couple of years ago I tested it again in Ireland (there was nothing else still open at that hour, to be frank) and it was definitely the worst thing I ate in Ireland in the time I was there.
That stuff shouldn't be called "pizza" in the first place, and I doubt it should be classified as food either, actually. I guess it got worse with time, or I stumbled upon a very very bad sho- restau-... How are we supposed to call them, by the way?
-
The solution to his bad reputation is to worsen it. If it gets worse enough he may even make a living out of it!
What I seriously don't get is what's wrong with Pizza Hut. Any honest job has dignity and I'll never understand people that make fun of others because of the job these last have/they fancy these last have.
Rather than the pics stuff (~who-the-heck-cares-BTW~) his lack of respect for Pizza Hut workers is the most telling thing about his character. And it's not good.
-
Whatever you do will in your life will most probably count very little in terms of the entire planet, and even if you'll be the next Alexander or Pasteur, well... we're on a ridiculously irrelevant grain of dust that pointlessly rotates around a N-th class star at the periphery of an immense thing that, too, is basically irrelevant compared to the Universe.
And we don't even know how much the Universe (we know) really counts in terms of ~everything~.
Whatever you do will be insignificant.
But history is not static. In many countries most children become adult, the principles of law apply to everyone and human rights are protected and - although nothing is perfect and there's no complete justice - it has not always been like that.
History is not static, and whatever improvement was put in effect by people like you. The great revelation is that nobody can do whatever you don't do: you are the only one that can do your part, thus it's very important that you do it.If you donate your blood, for example, someone will be relieved and you may even save a human life. You can choose to change something, which means that you too can leave your mark on that ~everything~.
I don't know about you, but when I choose to change something here and now - when I donate blood - I don't really give a damn about stars and nations, or galaxies and world crises. There can be only one that does the things that I do, and I am content with that.
Whatever you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it. (Gandhi) -
Thanks for that comment Gairjuki, and for the time you took to write and post it. It's very interesting.
-
I've never understood the disapproval for those that donate to the game. The game would probably not exist without them.
I'll intervene into the discussion to say that it's really blown out of proportion, if all it's about is Rush's comment against RL analogies despite him having a RL-related avatar.
-
Maybe - just maybe - letting Hime post whatever she wants wherever she wants, as long as she's not offensive; and expecting that Hime lets others post whatever they want, or wear whatever avatar they want, as long as they're not offensive... and trying to have fun in the game instead of "always" trying to show how and why others would be "bad" at something...
Maybe - just maybe - it would go a long way to enhance everyone's experience of CN.
A debate over the differences between IC, OOC and RL would certainly be interesting and instructive, if we could be civil about it. As it's happening in this blog entry it won't be anything else than a train wreck. Which - hey! - is OK if a train wreck is what you're looking for!
-
This argument of yours must be totally incomprehensible for anyone without knowledge of past issues. Assuming that any of you three (Hime, Potato and Rush) still knows where you started from and where you're heading to, by the way.
-
Maybe I am not getting something, but I thought that RP was about having fun with "make believe" stuff that, while obviously linked with RL in some way (otherwise there would be no common ground to start from, and it would thus be incomprehensible to everyone), it's mostly imaginary, at least in the part that counts and that provides fun. And yes, everyone's imagination, even Shakespeare's, is rooted in reality, but that doesn't make it any less an imaginary thing.
I thought that OOC was talking of the RP stuff, but without pretension and without the acting effort. And I thought that RL was the (bigger) part has nothing to do with the RP.
And all of this would have its place in these forums, and such roles would be interconnected, but separated (otherwise, how could I even make any distinction at all?)
And then, sure, there's the fact that we always play a role and we don't tell all to everyone, in RL and in CN and everywhere, and we're not 100% "sincere" with anyone: full disclosure is impossible or at least (a lot) undesirable. Would a spouse share her husband's sexual preferences at the next meeting at the local church? If not, does that mean that she's "role playing"?
To quote Pirandello, each person is "uno, nessuno e centomila" (google it) and we know, at least since the times of the ancient Greeks, that we don't even know our own self that very well, but I am not sure that this means that "role playing" is universally a useful criterion to interpret what people do on the Internet.
Sometimes they don't just pretend that they're dicks or stupid, for instance...
-
Chax, I must say that that is an amazing comment. Probably the best thing of your I ever read.<SNIP>
*applause*
-
Hoping to stop the off-topic debate on the jurisdiction of the Mods: Myth is right in the sense that the CN staff reserved for themselves the right to warn or ban any player without notice for any reason or for no reason at all, thus they may warn (or, more probably, ban) anyone they in any way become convinced has acted in an unacceptable way, no matter where that happened and even if it really happened. It's obviously a very rare occurrence, also because the Mods have no duty to do anything for what happens outside of the game and the forums, but it isn't impossible.
It might sound harsh or wrong or whatever anyone want, but it's been written in the TOS since day one! Those that find it unacceptable can just stop playing the game.
Can we stay on the topic of the boundaries of acceptable RP now, please?
-
Well obviously every one will have their specific take and sensibility about this issue, but I think that those leading in the joke (case in point: Tamerlane) ought to have a specific and authoritative opinion on the matter. Which I am curious to hear.
As for satire in general, it's expected to offend someone, otherwise it wouldn't be satire in the first place. One may like it or not, but I personally think that satire has a positive overall effect over society and I am thus inclined to like it more than not (except when the target is the weak/oppressed, which anyway automatically makes it something else than satire, IMHO).
According to my personal experience (no real authority then) satire of religion usually targets either clergies, stereotypes or the literal/stupid interpretation of the "original" religious message, rather than and in opposition to the "genuine" popular religiousness.
Which is why I took it almost for granted that this Mushlim stuff couldn't possibly be against Islam at large, unless we consider all those engaging into it as complete idiots. Which last thing doesn't really seem a fair or even just a remotely realistic assumption.
-
It changed when it became standard to activate military treaties, i.e. when non-chaining clauses became the norm.
The treaties themselves aren't really decisive anymore, now: everyone is tied to everyone else (one to four/five treaty chains away) and the real choice/event is when you enter a war. Which in fact is the news that is communicated by/to (and discussed with) your allies.
I think that a root reason for the above mechanism is that aged nations with big treasuries and nuclear capability are now very common, thus every grouping has some room to pursue their own FA path without risking to be obliterated once and for all - or not caring about it, for that matter - no matter how bad they screw up. Multiple FA trajectories (often "FaceBookNations FA", BTW) mean that the world is multi-polar or at least considerably chaotic, thus you can't really trust each other anymore: maybe your direct allies are reliable, but some of their allies most likely are not, and everyone wants an ad hoc exit to be used as needed. Add to this that many players are tired of the game and you can't trust them to be pursuing a sustainable FA path, which adds to the uncertainty and mistrust...
Ultimately what changed is the surface, anyway, not the "real" structure of the FA game. Replace signing treaties with "activating" them and you're back to your intense discussion among allies about what is happening (and about what really drives the game of politics).
-
I really doubt that any neutral "decided they needed the help of nobody because they'd never be in a war". At any rate, I talked with several neutrals during my years in CN and I don't recall a single one ever saying anything even remotely similar to that stance. Maybe they just hide and conspire when I don't look, who knows?
I am similarly skeptical about neutrals "shunning and laughing at" anyone's allies. Can you please point to some significant instance in which that would have happened?
-
Well "dirty" as it's not very white knight like.. I don't "morally" condemn trolling (in a game) and I can't even claim I never did it...
-
Well trolling is a dirty activity and one can't be too choosy when going about it. I think that whatever works is viable as long as it works.
Even getting everyone to face-palm and tell you that you're an "idiot" (I am exaggerating a bit), if that means that the thread is anyway wrecked, is a victory of sorts. It's probably not very hard won and it isn't a style anyone should be gloating about (IMHO), but it gets the job done, thus it's not an entire failure. It's a matter of perspective, I guess.
Your entries are always good reads, anyway. Thank you.
-
I must protest against this blog having such unfrequent entries. And I must thank Ktarthan for being Ktarthan (your nation slogan...
)On topic.
The point of trolling isn't to convince or to build a reputation, but to derail and bury the thread/arguments under pages of stupid discussion. Discrediting the troll can't get you anywhere, save maybe where the troll wanted to bring you.
In fact there's only one way to neuter trolls, which is to ignore them. If you can actually do it.
-
I think both of you
. -
I understand the frustration, but everyone's time would be better used without this. Just move one, maybe?
-
TBH I side more with the original trilogy fans.
IV-VI had evident flaws, some of which (special effects) were acceptable for the time and others were acceptable for a movie that wanted to give adventure, action and romance and to satisfy a large public (and not only Sci-Fi nerds); other flaws were just unredeemable. But overall it had an epic undertone which united the trilogy and which gave sense to the story. They were memorable.
I'll here disagree with Crymson that the original trilogy had much of character growth/evolution - or that much more than the prequels - but that is not a flaw IMHO because an epic story shouldn't particularly develop characters, but rather represent them vividly. Which the original trilogy did pretty well.The prequels were just... I can't even say what they were because they didn't left any lasting impression on me. I confusedly remember them being excessively complicated and full of movement and details - hey maybe it's just me being older lol... - but seriously: they had a lot of "stuff" that wasn't there to support the story and that often hadn't any comprehensible reason to be there at all. they were mostly just a lot of filler with some content here and there.
Jar Jar Binks had nothing to do with Star Wars, but I weirdly liked it because at least it provided a grip on an otherwise completely elusive and meaningless, supposedly "epic" story. Thanks to Jar Jar you could at least watch Episode I pretending that it was just a kids movie, and enjoy it in some way. Which is what I ended up doing to survive that situation.
Episode III was definitely better, especially because Ewan McGregor (Obi Wan) finally got around his character, and even more because of the larger and more important part played by McDiarmid (Palpatine), which performed admirably. But overall all that salvaged it in the sense of being an epic story is basically what linked it to the original trilogy.I don't know if my comment makes sense... I suppose I am just trying to say that the original trilogy managed to be epic - as in telling the story of heroes that end up saving a world - despite the other factors that could have ruined it. The prequels had their epic buried under too much fluff that wasn't necessary and that just distracted the audience from the main point.
I am not particularly pro the originals (save for the youth I had when I first saw them, I suppose) or against the prequels, anyway. These last are overall even decent, IMHO, especially if you don't expect them to be anything like the original trilogy and you can appreciate the special effects, the landscapes, the palaces etc. even when the script is insufficient.
What I most blame Lucas for are stuff like replacing, back in the original movie, Shaw with Christensen and Guinnes with McGregor (seriously Lucas, WTF?). Or trying to force some white-knighting on Han Solo, ex-post, in a terribad and horrorific (and anyway failed) pathetic attempt at "political correctness".
Seriously, Han shot first. -
I wish you that you have made the right choice.I accepted the challenge because I couldn't have fun in any alliance but GOONS.
The GOONS alliance has always been one I could have considered joining, but I am not sure that eating dog food is the right way... It's not the dog food itself (I doubt it can do you any harm, or even that it tasted that bad - if it was really dog food, anyway) but it's the idea of the (self?) humiliation. That part conflicts a bit with the idea of earning respect from your peers there.
I might be off track, anyway, I don't pretend I understand everyone's mindset. As I said, best wishes!
-
Dionysus, initially you didn't want to - or so you said - but then you accepted the "challenge". Why? To not be banned on GOONS's board? What made you change your mind?
-
Trading has always been OK, except when nuclear rogues usually get sanctioned. But no one goes after their trade partners, anyway.
It should remain like that, IMHO, as having to set new trades is unfairly annoying for the uninvolved people, considering that forcing the nation at war to find new trades (even on Grey) isn't that much significant in comparison. Asking to everyone to constantly monitor what their trade partners are doing would be equally crazy.
The other two are clear problems, but then I don't understand why your questions are about direct attack on the nation sending the aid. Diplomacy should be used and military action should be the last resort: in 99% of the cases the aid is just part of a tech deal and the aiding nation deserves a chance to explain/remedy before they are attacked.
-
My friend, you seem to be saying that a group you labeled "American liberal feminism" and that would adhere to no morality would have decided that women "must" act like men.To quote Ali G: "dat is a very sexist way to talk about dem !@#$%*es"
In all seriousness, liberal feminism (in America, I have no idea of the state of it anywhere else) has decided that to be equal to men, women must act like men. And since liberals adhere to no morality, it means they must act like the most depraved men. But women are not men, and men are not women.
Now, rather than defend Miley's slaggish behavior as they did Beyonce's (at the Super Bowl this year), they are asking "why not condemn Robin Thicke, too?!!! See, sexism!" But the problem is theirs still; to condemn Thicke is to condemn Miley, anyway. To congratulate Beyonce is to congratulate Miley. The idiocy of postmodernism allows them to have their cake and eat it too vis-a-vis "but there's no man on stage wtih Beyonce!" but people with brains know it's all garbage. Trash is trash is trash.
40 years ago I would have been appalled at David Bowie, but frankly he is the Naz with God-given ass and Miley (and Beyonce, and Britney, and Pink, and John Meyer for that matter) are all just sexed up trash who aren't nearly as controversial or dead sexy.
I'll start by asking to you how you identified that group: Do they have an association or do they gather in some geographic/Internet place, or anything like that? Or do you group them based on their behaviour? Or how does it work?
Second: How can "they" adhere to no morality and at the same time decide that anyone ~must~ do anything? The two things don't seem to add up much.
I have this sensation that your hit missed the strawman that you had built.
And yes, condemning Thicke is condemning Miley and it's condemning Beyonce, but the point isn't about condemning the people that are on stage, it's about calling out those that selectively condemn them. You're looking at the moon when you should be looking at the finger!
Note that I don't care about all these condemnations, moralism or lack of thereof, about the people you mentioned and almost all of this trash. My only comment on that is "lolshowbiz".
But I am interested in your logic, that surprisingly seems rather lacking in this case.
-
lolshowbiz
Thicke's "music" is terrible BTW. The only good thing of Blurred Lines is the.
)
Judgements Pt.3 (21-30)
in Rush Sykes' Blog
A blog by Rush Sykes in General
Posted
Pax Corvus is neutral. If you don't know anything of them you're truly missing on something.
I definitely agree on your opinion on Sard: he's one of the best players in the whole game.
As for people wanting the GOONS (and/or the MK) "gone": AFAIK people would like to keep the game-related drama, but not at the cost of having to bear RL-related crap, and - if the two can't be separated - they'd rather get rid of both.
I personally disagree with that analysis as I maintain that individuals, not alliances, should be held responsible for RL-related offenses, but I acknowledge that it's definitely not an issue of "not realizing what they'd lose". They do realize it very well and there's in fact a specific part they want to lose.