Kzoppistan
-
Posts
3,882 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Blog Comments posted by Kzoppistan
-
-
It's a tie between Jack Daniels (Jacky D's sour mash - cheapest of the sippin' whiskeys) and Bloody Marys. Followed by a good imperial stout.
The third is a tie between vodka & cranberry and a White (or Blonde) Russian.
Then... wait, must stop, getting thirsty, back later
-
Sounds great.
-
You're asking questions you already know the answers to, Vlad.
Though rubbing the facts of a propaganda line proven false into the faces of one's detractors seems only reasonable.
-
Understand that no emotional state lasts forever and that "this too shall pass".
1. Like Tidy Bowl Man said, sunshine and exercise does wonders.
2. Like Derantol said, getting out and being social, especially when you don't want to, will alleviate your mood.
3. Stop focusing on your own problems. Instead, make a gratitude list, number off all the things you are grateful for. Do it at least twice a day.
4. Stop focusing on your own problems. Do something nice for someone else. It will make you feel better, too.
5. Stop focusing on your own problems. Take your mind off it by getting involved in a creative project like writing, music, art, or other hobby. Consider meditation or prayer.
Take care, I hope you feel better soon.
-
Is it possible for you BOTH to lose this fight?
I actually laughed out loud and snorted in one quick exhalation.
-
Boring. 'A' for effort, though.
-
You sure do love to make grandiose and flowery (yet utterly empty) statements. Do you practice in the mirror?
You sure do love to act like you've got a stick up your $@!. Is criticizing others a hobby for you? Do you practice that in the mirror or does being a pissy princess come naturally?
-
Didn't say it wasn't, but you always need to think about how you're likely to come across to the other person when you're offering them advice because a lot of the time it ends up doing more harm than good.
Yes, and other times the intent of well meaning advice can be misconstrued by a third party simply because they see an opportunity to do so.
Edit: Hmmph. Redacted. Speaking of advice, I'm going to take a cue from Potato and simply say: roll FAR.
-
Apology accepted, no harm done. Just try to think a bit harder about whether the person you're talking to is likely to already be aware of the advice you want to give them next time
In fact, I did just that, and provided my thoughts on the matter that I felt would have solved this particular issue. I'm flattered you felt the need to critique them, but perhaps you should have just provided your own expert advice.
And yes, thinking hard about what you are saying, and the ramifications, is always time well spent.
-
mindblowingly basic
Lol. I like that. So basic it blows your mind. Like, they can't believe it is SO BASIC that it completely blows their entire mind. My goodness, how the expectations have been so utterly crushed with the basic-ness of it all.
I'm going to use that sometime.
No, Voytek, I'M sorry that my idle thoughts on the matter were not up to your level of sophistication. Perhaps you would like to instruct us on the finer points?
(Don't worry, SCY, Voytek has gone out of his way to take a potshot or two at me before, so this is just par for the course. You can't be everyone's friend, I suppose
) -
Thanks for the advice Kzoppistan, I have no doubt that Rush will greatly appreciate some tips from a veteran given his inexperience in FA wheelings and dealings.
Now see if you can find what's wrong with the above sentence.
It's presumptuous?
The way you responded seems to indicate that you think I was somehow speaking down to him. Which I'm not, Rush and I have debated a number of times, I know he's got a keen mind and good way with words. He was venting and I replied with some advice.
Rush is very capable and I have confidence that he can handle any situation. I was just 'talking shop', as they say. I'm always eager to hear another diplomat's take on things and so freely provide my own, as well.
-
Rush, as far as I'm concerned you handled that pretty well, though if you're open to suggestions, I'll provide one in a minute.
Frankly, this was a good opportunity for FAR to build a better alliance to alliance relationship, but instead, this Fernando just came off sounding like a !@#$%. Or at least very hostile. Did you piss in his wheaties or something? Even amongst enemies, squaring up accounts builds mutual respect. Unless there is proof indicating a scam, it's better to give the buyer the benefit of the doubt, and just cough up the tech. 50? Even 100 tech? That's chump change. And begrudging that minuscule amount only makes them look petty.
Here is a tip I picked up as MoFA: many people come into a FA situation as a me vs. them mindset. They try to argue their points and make the other person submit to the superior logic/proof. They use the threat of repercussions, be it war or smearing their reputation, or what ever. That is the strong arm version of diplomacy (and diplomacy is simply battle on a different ground). In really big issues, ones that will make a major impact on the alliances or set some sort of precedent, it is important to do that. But in many cases, the issue can be resolved much more amicably.
To do that, one must abandon the us vs. them mentality and adopt a more conciliatory one, even if you are the aggrieved party. Instead of saying (rhetorically) "You have done me wrong and I demand redress" you frame it as "here we have a situation and I am your partner in finding the best solution so we can move forward". You move to the side of them rather than confronting them head on. Abandon the "who is right" debate, that only generates hostility. Instead, appeal to their sense of justice or fair play. Use your character as reference.
One solution is to hand them the problem and let them solve it for you. For example, ask them for help, "Look, I know you have to take the word of your alliance mate, and I respect that, but please understand I'm still out 100 tech. Is there anything you can do to help me?" Now you've given him the power over your situation, and most likely, since people are eager to exercise their power by solving your problem, you will get closer to what you want. In reality, you are owed the tech and have the right to demand it, but by appealing to their ego, you can get them to fix it for you. Just be sure to thank them, wax poetic about their generosity ect. That is the payment they like to have.
Remember, power plays in diplomacy is the brute force method, anybody can do it as long as they've got the numbers to back them up. But that is a crude method indeed. A truly skillful agent gets the other party to move as the agent wishes by letting the other party think it is their idea and in the end both the agent and the other party disengage happy with the results.
Good luck getting this sorted out.
-
You have strayed from the article here, but I will provide some thoughts anyway.
If one bases their thought on materialism, as I do, then it is clear that individuals will hold different political views, and thus partake in different political activities, depending on where they exist within the superstructure. Or, to put it another way: power has a logic of its own.
One may say something when they are downtrodden and then act completely differently once they attain power (as Karma has perfectly demonstrated). But this isn't necessarily a conscious hypocrisy (though it may be); it is simply the case that your interests have changed, and as such ideas that once sounded rational now sound absurd, and ideas that once sounded absurd now sound rational.
But this is another matter entirely (and one that I have written on before, if you are keen to challenge my ideas).
I am eager to do so, but I'm afraid I'm finding little to disagree with at the moment.
(Straying farther from the original article, but a bit related to your thoughts, I wrote short piece on such: An Essay Regarding the Nature of Power)Your miss the central tenet of my logic, Kzoppistan. The difference between sphere and world is not arbitrary -- no more arbitrary than between alliance and world. The point being made in the quote I posted previously was that to assume sovereignty over the entire world would be to assume sovereignty over every nation in said world, whether they consented or not. It would be to enforce your own laws over other alliances, and to deny any safe refuge from your tyranny. None of the criticisms I made can apply to a colour sphere.
The point of the article is very specific -- international rights and their practical implications. On this the New Pacific Order wholly and explicitly rejected taking the place of the hegemonic bloc, despite the power it would have provided. Indeed, when Vox Populi first established itself and gained a following, it set out to organise an international 'Bill of Rights', and asked the NPO to become its enforcer. On the same reasoning I had provided the year previous, it was rejected out of hand. [This was noted briefly in the addendum to my article, Despotic Primitivism.]
Well now that you have provide a context, I can see that you were replying very specifically to the papers put forth by a group that was opposed to the existence of the Order, and so it was in your interest to undermine their philosophy point by point. While I was speaking a bit more generally and somewhat abstractedly about the nature of rights and so forth.
In fact the the Order took a very libertarian approach to power, allowing alliances to do what they wanted so long as it didn't affect our security. Ironically it was this libertarianism that was turned against us during Karma, as we were roundly condemned for failing to interfere in events retrospectively deemed to be bad.
Ironic, indeed.
All that said, I hope that you will continue to read and write on the underlying politics of our little world -- whether in agreement or disagreement with me. I have missed sparring with our mutual comrade, Ferrous.
Ha, I bet! Ferrous is a great guy. I virtually followed in his footsteps up the ladder of gov. He's got a very sharp mind, great integrity, and always took great care in mentoring those interested in politics.
I will keep a lookout for any of your other work, and of course will continue to shape my own political philosophy as well.
-
I'm glad you agree (if sorry that this means we can't spit further polemics at one another over the matter).
It's a dichotomous agreement, at best. Because on one hand, I don't like people telling me what to do, on the other, I doubt I, nor anyone and especially not any organization, could resist for long the lure towards being hegemonic bloc capable of enslaving the world if I/we had the power to do so. Even a 'live and let live' individual such as myself could probably find a justification for utilizing such power, nor do I think any other could resist the temptation for long either. Frankly, this seems like exactly the article to write to allay the fears of outsiders about one's growing power, while on the other side of the curtain, furiously working to make it come about. Whether that was the intention or not, I suppose only your inner thoughts know the truth to that.
As regards the Moldavi Doctrine, it was not a document that spoke to international rights, and so cannot be juxtaposed to my article. By international rights we mean a truly global phenomenon -- a universal and inescapable law that weighs heavy on the mind of every individual. The Doctrine, on the other hand, merely codified de facto Pacifican sovereignty over the red sphere; the practical effect of which was an economic boost for small alliances as they were paid to move elsewhere.
The important line here in this matter is the following: "The hegemonic bloc would need to claim sovereignty over the world, forcing all nations, alliances and blocs under its domain; thus completely destroying their sovereignty."
Again, while it's quite a leap from a sphere to a globe, I find the distinction a bit arbitrary.
Regardless, an interesting reply. I've been looking for a chance to clash verbal swords with you over something (not because I'm any good, in fact, I'm a horrible debater, but I enjoy it so much that I'm willing to risk embarrassment to do so
) but I think perhaps another piece would be better suited to serve as a battleground of fallacious arguments and engorged vocabularies. :3 -
Ha! He takes the bait, now if only I can reel him in.
You wound me, Chief Savage Man.
I don't find this critique to be convincing in any sense of the word, missing as it does the point from start to finish. In discussing what 'Globalists' argue, it ignores the context within which the article was written back in 2007. Moreover, it ignorantly distorts what is meant here by an 'international right', first through an extraordinarily superficial misanalysis of world politics (the 'spy' example), and then through an extraordinary misreading of the point by turning it into a parochial concern of colour spheres. This is all nicely rounded off by turning to the metaphysical and once again missing the context within which the debate was taking place.
I will expand on these points a little later should I find the time. Interested readers can find the complete original article here: http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/The_Slavery_of_International_Rights
Pretty words, Vladimir, but throwing a dictionary at someone isn't making an argument. You say I missed the
context, I say you never even properly established it. So go ahead, illuminate your reasoning, I dare say it could use it, but I warn you, I wrote this a year and half ago as a young buck cutting his teeth on the simplistic politics of this world, a system that you've taken great pains to convolute for your own ends. Let's see how you fare against a seasoned player.
I don't find this critique to be convincing in any sense of the word, missing as it does the point from start to finish.
Then the point?
(*Thanks for the link, the one I had went to the old Zenith forum, so I edited it out. In fact, I may have to go back and read it myself as I can't for the life of me remember what the hell I was even talking about.
)*Edit:
Hmmm, after going back and reading the article. I find myself more in agreement now than at the time I wrote the critique. Looking back on it, I think I wrote the critique more to sharpen my pen than anything. The premise, that the enforcement of international rights would require an international authoritarian body, a situation that should be avoided because to willing bow to such would be to place the shackles on one's own wrists, is a premise I myself would probably argue seeing as I have such a disdain for authority and am rebellious in nature.
But doesn't that argument invalidate the justification for NPO's dominance over the red sphere?
And isn't the point to make others submit to the will of the alliance?
To me, it sounds as if you are painting flowers on your sword. In one breath, claiming that one shouldn't submit to any hegemonic bloc bent on establishing a world order, and in the next, claiming the red sphere as yours.
*shrug*
-
Depends on how my organ harvesting business is doing that year. Ha ha ha... ehm.
If he's not killing me or my friends/family, I really do not care.
^ This
-
Your head is crippled!!
-
Having been in a variety of structures, I can say I prefer the top-down "enlightened despot" type for its ease of administration, but I suppose a democratic setting keeps players interested.
-
The "History" Channel is becoming less and less about history and more and more about junk reality show programming. While an improvement over 1955 UFO conspiracy b.s. (which they also show to death, along with other conspiracy programming), your best bet for history programming is to go to the History Channel web site, watch History Channel International, the Military Channel, or one of the other many channels on cable or satellite TV that carry history programming.
^ This
It's really a shame that they can't just do shows on history or at least something quasi-related to it; history is fascinating and interesting enough right there. Commercialization ruins just about everything.
-
WarriorConcept, for his adept piloting of Celestial Being. I'd give The Big Bad a nod, too, for attempting to act in the same spirit.
-
Not true, I've been successfully retired for over a month now.
Except for that week where, despite incredibly pressing personal issues to handle, I took part in some important alliance business.
Hmmm...
-
Mmm, I think this is a just a pressure move by SK to wring some sort of concession out of NK. I'm pretty sure they already determined it was a stray mine that exploded. But, who knows, it's all cloak and dagger. I wouldn't count on the mainstream media to portray an accurate picture of events.
-
This is indeed rocking, buddy. It's good to be working with you again.
TFD also has GearHead. That in itself should be enough reason for Zenith to be happy merging into TFD.
True that.
And Kzopp is indeed epic.
Lies and slander. (Hee hee, keep that up, Jarkko, and you'll ruin my reputation.
) -
Wasn't Gibson also the guy that wrote Johnny Mnemonic?
Yep, that's right. He was also the one who coined the term "cyberspace".
)
(Straying farther from the original article, but a bit related to your thoughts, I wrote short piece on such: 
)
'Philosophy has become Science fiction'
in Order from Chaos
A blog by Ethan in General
Posted
This article gets an A+.