Jump to content

Stonewall Jaxon

Banned
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2,003

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Blog Comments posted by Stonewall Jaxon

  1. jerdge

    Posted

    I just spent 15 minutes typing out a long response, only to get a "no permission" thing from the forum. Sorry, jerdgy.

    EDIT: In short, CBs used to serve the purpose of political justification for a war. IMO, the definition of a CB is an action committed by the defending alliance which allows the attacking alliance to assert that the defending alliance committed the first aggressive or unconscionable act and thus should be the one held responsible for the war. What a good CB really does is give alliances who do not want to defend the defending alliance a chance to save their skins without facing too much embarrassment. The inverse is also true with bad CBs (see: Karma War). Now, however, the political dynamic of PR in CN has been lost because all that remain here are the partisan core members of alliances, meaning that no amount of logic or good posting is going to sway the fate of an alliance or war over time.

  2. Schattenmann

    Posted

    For whatever reason--disbandment denial, bad breath, dumb leaders--VE was never welcome among GOD's other bloc, SuperFriends
    Bad breath, it was definitely bad breath. Smooth had a horrible gingivitis problem back then.As for the rest, well, I'm not quite sure how to reply to a post with this title from you, so I won't.

    What a disappointing reply. I can only assume this means that you did not find anything in the OP to be contestable

  5. supercoolyellow

    Posted

    SCY, I'm joining you in this. I like to say, similarly, "I got a (bag, frocket, etc, depending what I have on me at the time) full of my $%&@s. You're... just not getting any of my $%&@s. I refuse to give them." I played CN that way before, and it's always been the best time I've had here, so I'm down to do it again.

    Also, when you're in the bar, if you're confident, you're in any girl's "league." Notice nice guys say "girls always end up with !@#$%bags!"? It's because !@#$%bags are cocky sons of !@#$%*es, but you don't have to be a d-bag to be confident; you just have to realize if you get rejected, you didn't lose a goddamn thing except 4-5 minutes of your time. I always thought that was some cliché, and girls were as shallow as we are, but once I stopped giving a $%&@ about rejection and immediately gunning for the hotties at the bar, I was amazed about how much confidence actually mattered. That and clothes choice ;)

  9. Schattenmann

    Posted

    Must be someone important if Schat is blogging about him.

    Very well, I remember pulling the same argument in Schatt's anniversary thread, but I'm just saying if you call someone unimportant or accuse them of contributing nothing to the community, you should either have done something in your time in CN or be a well-contributing member. Obviously wuss doesn't fit that criteria.

    Also, would it be beating a dead horse to say that the pictures are annoying? I guess it would defeat my purpose because that's why you do them, right?

  13. Melancholy Culkin

    Posted

    Once more, I am going to ask you to take a deep breath and reflect on the nature of these forums & blogs. Likewise, if you do not stop, I am going to have to cut you off for the night because clearly you've reached your limit.
    I don't understand this argument, and that is saying something when I am omniscient. Even if I was upset, God (Burnt) forbid that I am upset over... racist accusations. Considering you have no basis for this, and although I take note of your sincerity to protect my feelings, shutting up might do you wonders in stopping my extremely "mad" responses.I'll give you one actual bit of practical advice: don't try to start an argument and then run away. I understand this hit-and-run thing you kinds of people do in SF, but it isn't working. I suggest starting a Q&A thread to dissipate any feelings you may think I have towards you.

    You seem to take Cybernations way to personally. Also, in regards to the you vs. Myth side of the "argument," (or one-way !@#$-flinging fest, whichever you prefer), he implied that the Japanese and Chinese dislike one another. I know many people who take this as fact, but to your credit he didn't provide "evidence" of this fact, sort of like when people don't provide "evidence" for every other thing that they say unless they're arguing with someone, which he didn't know he was (for example, I haven't cited every fact in my post to links to particular posts in this thread because I assume you have a memory span of more than two seconds. Admittedly, it's a stretch on my part). He made an assumption, but you proceeded to make an assumption to the contrary, providing just as much evidence as he did, and proceeded to insult his intelligence (and I don't mean in that indirect ask-him-an-easy-question kind of way) based on the fact that he didn't provide evidence. Thus, not only are you a hypocrite, but you have proved yourself to be a total arrogant ass incapable of conducting yourself with any self-respect, intelligence, or self-awareness.

    Congratulations, you've successfully mastered debating on the OWF.

  19. New Frontier

    Posted

    There was a time when you were not complaining about an onslaught of topics in which players declared that they were no longer be a part of the problem. When Vox was founded, the majority of members each made a topic as they joined, clarifying their reasons for joining and urging others to take similar actions.

    And yet, no post like this came from you then. Why the difference now?

  20. Schattenmann

    Posted

    Whats the point of this blog post?
    Schattenmann doesn't like VE.That's pretty much it.Seriously though all of this is completely irrelevant after the fact, nobody cares.

    I find it amusing that if something doesn't interest you, you immediately declare that "nobody cares," when really this is quite telling information about the absurdity of VE's handling with seemingly straightforward negotiations. It's practically a CN sitcom

  21. Ryan Greenberg

    Posted

    The most telling sign of the general hypocrisy surrounding the myth of "Karma" lies in 1.e. Here, we see an alliance that was attacked once for their past transgressions, and most of the world agreed with the war. Following that war, there was a re-declaration of war on the same alliance, essentially for the same past transgressions with the pure intent of destroying the victimized alliance. Then, once the victimized alliance tries to save the few numbers it has left in the shelter of peace mode, the aggressor alliances become furiously bloodthirsty for the very statistics being sheltered, and demands their release as a means of peace, thus giving the victimized alliance the choice of either being hopelessly destroyed in an unfair fight, or face prolonged war.

    This has happened twice in Cybernations history. Can anyone in the class name the two?

  25. kriekfreak

    Posted

    You declared on us and then surrendered to us. Let this be a lesson to you: if NSO threatens you, embrace it.

    Who says we went in with the intent of winning? Maybe we just felt like our personal sense of honor would not allow us to make meaningless threats? Or maybe we just felt like knocking out some of your precious infrastructure and watching you moan and bawwww. Either way, it's still fun to watch you.

×
×
  • Create New...