Lacuna Populi

[Earogema]

Well, you can't justify actions that you can't commit because you really have no power to commit the actions in the first place.

Nice try. Philosophies can apply to more people than just those that made it.

[Schattenmann]

It's similar in that they are papers used to justify the Vox position, but they will never be used to justify actions that are outright outrageous.

Also, it's fun and important enough that our own members will read and can understand it.

[Lennox]

Simp #3. Read and enlightened

[D34th]

So are you guys winning the war? Interesting...

[Schattenmann]

And since I've addressed the other two I might as well give Schattenmann a nod; wouldn't want him to feel left out. From my reading of this rather crude attempt to coin a new term the point is basically to say that if something helps the NPO it is part of the 'power superstructure' and thus bad (taken in coordination with MegaAros's rehashed nonsense about 'balance' -- at least the wording has moved on since Walford, even if nothing else has), and if something opposes it is not a part of the 'power superstructure' and thus either neutral or good. Seems a bit redundant when you could just cut out the middleman say 'NPO suxxors' instead.

You know, an early draft included a paragraph to point out that the reader should guard his mind from lazy, slovenly attempts to reduce what they are reading into "lol npo sux"

The existence of the Power Superstructure is not necessarily "good" or "bad" (but it's cute and funny that you tried to turn the debate to your favorite subject, morality). In fact, the portion posted does not broach that subject at all.

Edited February 4, 2009 by Schattenmann

[Earogema]

MegaAros was also way off base in his attempt to understand Francoism (really I never thought it was all that hard), the point of which is not to gain more and more national strength (something I explicitly and rather loudly noted in a Vox thread just a few weeks ago) but to reduce conflict (physical and otherwise) so as to increase freedom -- the freedom of potential -- and thus civilisation. While physical strength is important for an alliance as a means to peace and prosperity, it is not the focus of Francoism and never has been.

There is a lot more wrong with MegaAros's post than just his understanding of Francoism, but unfortunately time is short. Perhaps later.

Oh please. Don't you dare give me that pseudo-Social Contract Philosophy 101 nonsense.

Also, note, I say that Francosim is to reduce conflict. Try rereading.

[Doitzel]

So are you guys winning the war? Interesting...

That depends on how you define victory. By Comrade Doppelganger's definition it is simply denying your enemies your destruction, so according to the NPO -- yes, we are winning the war.

I prefer to look to more subtle changes in the broader stage. Public discourse is much more open and people are much less afraid to speak their minds than they have been in a long, long time. Of course this may be due to other factors than Vox -- who could really say? And of course most information is still hoarded greedily by the ruling elite despite some valiant attempts to liberate such knowledge for the greater enlightenment of mankind ... but we are getting there! Slowly but surely.

[Homura]

It don't recommend it.

Slipping a bit with your exquisite grammar, are we?

[Vladimir]

Sorry, Schattenmann, but that's essentially all it is. It's a new term designed to make anything favourable to the NPO undesirable. That's its purpose.

Oh please. Don't you dare give me that pseudo-Social Contract Philosophy 101 nonsense.

Also, note, I say that Francosim is to reduce conflict. Try rereading.

I couldn't find the word "conflict" anywhere in your essay. I did find these though:

"It exists so that the physical well-being of the nation is kept."

"Francoism is nothing but the maintaining of stats and of the nature of growth of nations. It precludes nothing more. It is a physical, meaningless existence."

"it reduces to world to the physical strength of nations"1

"[Contrasting 'Voxism' to Francoism:] instead of focusing on nothing but their physical existence"

Almost looks to me like you think Francoism is all about physical strength. Or maybe... if I screw my eyes and tilt my head a little... no, no, it still looks like you think Francoism is all about physical strength.

[Vladimir]

Slipping a bit with your exquisite grammar, are we?

'It' is how the Soviestani people say 'I' if they are seeking to emphasise that which follows it. It developed out of the northern dialect before unification and It'm very sensitive about it if you don't mind.

[Earogema]

Sorry, Schattenmann, but that's essentially all it is. It's a new term designed to make anything favourable to the NPO undesirable. That's its purpose.

I couldn't find the word "conflict" anywhere in your essay. I did find these though:

"It exists so that the physical well-being of the nation is kept."

"Francoism is nothing but the maintaining of stats and of the nature of growth of nations. It precludes nothing more. It is a physical, meaningless existence."

"it reduces to world to the physical strength of nations"1

"[Contrasting 'Voxism' to Francoism:] instead of focusing on nothing but their physical existence"

Almost looks to me like you think Francoism is all about physical strength. Or maybe... if I screw my eyes and tilt my head a little... no, no, it still looks like you think Francoism is all about physical strength.

The Francoist mindset is that a perfect world may be created if all nations withdraw from the state of nature, join under the Emperor of the Order, and then, proceed to build up their nations. Then, through use of mutual protection, these nations protect one another from any and all outside force. Of course, in the perfect Francoist world, there is no outside force, as they have all joined Pacifica, or at the very least, allied with them.

Perfect = free of conflict.

I know it takes some reasoning, but do try to keep up.

Besides, the situation I describe is obviously free of conflict.

[Branimir]

Of course this may be due to other factors than Vox -- who could really say?

Yes, nobody really.

As such nothing really could be said for Vox making any success, thus some making the logical assumption coming that you made no success at all.

Edited February 4, 2009 by Branimir

[Schattenmann]

Sorry, Schattenmann, but that's essentially all it is. It's a new term designed to make anything favourable to the NPO undesirable. That's its purpose.

From draft 3:

But, while it is easy for those unfamiliar with my terminology to mistake my meaning for nothing more than a veiled allusion or synonym for pre-existing ideas or bodies like “Ebil NPO,” “The Continuum,” or “MDP Web” the truly mentally awake must be made aware of the true depth of meaning this term holds.

So, are you sleepy or a sloven?

[Earogema]

Yes, nobody really.

As such nothing really could be said for Vox making any success, thus some making the logical assumption coming that you made no success at all.

I'll never understand you.

This is really all you ever do. You say your enemy has no point at all, then use the face, and then gracefully walk out.

Whatever works I guess.

[Sithis]

Nintenderek's essay needs more mario references and tongue smilies.

[Branimir]

I'll never understand you.

This is really all you ever do. You say your enemy has no point at all, then use the face, and then gracefully walk out.

Whatever works I guess.

Actually I was reaffirming Doitzel's point.

And didnt use the emotion in question at any point in my post.

So I guess thats not all I ever do, maybe my points at times are flying over your head so from there you got that sense.

Edited February 4, 2009 by Branimir

[Earogema]

Actually I was reaffirming Doitzel's point.

And didnt use the emotion in question at any point in my post.

So I guess thats not all I ever do, maybe my points at times are flying over your head so from there you got that sense.

So you've changed it up recently. It's not a very large change.

Anyway, as I said, whatever works. You're hardly one of the NPO's best propagandists.

[Vladimir]

Perfect = free of conflict.

I know it takes some reasoning, but do try to keep up.

Besides, the situation I describe is obviously free of conflict.

I'm sorry, you 100% incorrectly defined Francoism repeatedly throughout your essay never once touching on a correct definition, and I had taken the word "perfect" to merely be a minor part of that essay with no hidden top secret meaning. I now realise that in using it you were saying "ignore the rest of the essay, what I am actually discussing is the conflict inherent to the natural world and the necessity to combat against it in order that nations can develop their social, political and physical potential freely." Apologies for my mistake. If I had known I would have skipped the rest of it and only read that word, since clearly it was the only important part. Maybe next time you do this you could add a "*wink wink, nudge nudge*" after the word in question, just so us slow old folk can keep up.

So, are you sleepy or a sloven?

All your addition said was "if you disagree with me then you're an idiot." Is there another part of your five page exposition that happens to note why this is the case? [Don't worry, you can make it up now if you want and claim there was, I won't tell, I just want to know your reasoning so the concept can be clarified, for better or worse.] Or even better, perhaps you could send me the whole five pages and I will critique your concept based on its full explanation.

Edited February 4, 2009 by Vladimir

[Earogema]

I'm sorry, you 100% incorrectly defined Francoism repeatedly throughout your essay never once touching on a correct definition, and I had taken the word "perfect" to merely be a minor part of that essay with no hidden top secret meaning. I now realise that in using it you were saying "ignore the rest of the essay, what I am actually discussing is the conflict inherent to the natural world and the necessity to combat against it in order that nations can develop their social, political and physical potential freely." Apologies for my mistake. If I had known I would have skipped the rest of it and only read that word, since clearly it was the only important part. Maybe next time you do this you could add a "*wink wink, nudge nudge*" after the word in question, just so us slow old folk can keep up.

No, you're just used to being so verbose that you'd put Gods to bed. I can make my point clearly without an entire paragraph. Your small sarcastic "burn" is no use here.

Edited February 4, 2009 by MegaAros

[Nintenderek]

Oh for the love of... have you been talking to President ShinRa again? It don't recommend it. This is not in any way what I argued, in fact the section you quoted itself argues that the Orders didn't achieve their objectives -- the very next sentence is "With neither side achieving their original goals ..." -- so how could that point go on to argue that they won?

My argument was that the Orders won the war because they were winning the military battle. How so many people have missed this I can't even begin to fathom, especially since it was repeated ad nauseum in the original thread. So, if you intend to use my position to judge Vox's "war" (if it can even be called that) then I'm afraid it has been a rather crushing defeat for Vox. Sorry.

I'm guessing you don't even read your own essays? The core of your essay (In case I'm the only person who's ever read it, which is highly likely), is that you guys won because you weren't destroyed and that neither side accomplished their goals. In my essay, I showed how Vox has accomplished it's goals and how Pacifica has not, therefore, as the writer of your essay should state if he wasn't a hypocrite, Vox is therefore currently winning this war.

Also lol @ not calling it a war.

Nintenderek's essay needs more mario references and tongue smilies.

I understand the tongue smilie thing, but where the heck did the Mario reference thing comes from? Sure, maybe my name is Nintenderek, and maybe I do have a mario style avatar, but I don't remember making any Mario references on this forum =p

Also lol @ Chunky's latin =p

Edited February 4, 2009 by Nintenderek

[Schattenmann]

your addition said was "if you disagree with me then you're an idiot." Is there another part of your five page exposition that happens to note why this is the case? [Don't worry, you can make it up now if you want and claim there was, I won't tell, I just want to know your reasoning so the concept can be clarified, for better or worse.] Or even better, perhaps you could send me the whole five pages and I will critique your concept based on its full explanation.

We've reached an impass:

What I've outlined goes beyond "npo sucks" and does not reference NPO. My historical rundown of NPO is that it's a fat spider stuck on its own web (and quite pitifully).

You can't handle that I'm talking about something bigger than NPO, so you reduce it to NPO and ask me to "prove" that I'm not talking about NPO.

You're a sloven.

[Branimir]

So you've changed it up recently. It's not a very large change.

No, what is actually a conclusion here is that you are making a very off base comment about my posting.

When called on it, you revert to a empty retort.

You're hardly one of the NPO's best propagandists.

NPO is blessed with a lot of capable people, that is most true.

[Earogema]

No, what is actually a conclusion here is that you are making a very off base comment about my posting.

When called on it, you revert to a empty retort.

NPO is blessed with a lot of capable people, that is most true.

Like I said, whatever works for you.

More then enough people know the name Branimir and of his legendary debating skills. I will say no more.

[Vladimir]

Schattenmann, I only noted the NPO because it is the alliance currently viewed by Vox as being in the centre of the situation you discuss (thus currently it is all about the NPO -- you could argue that it is all about the Continuum, or One Vision, or the treaty web, or whatever, but I have noted NPO for simplicity, and since it is Vox's own focus).

Can I assume that you won't be sending me the full five pages?

No, you're just used to being so verbose that you'd put Gods to bed. I can make my point clearly without an entire paragraph. Your small sarcastic "burn" is no use here

Are you seriously going to sit here and tell me that despite the entire essay demonstrating time and again a significant misunderstanding of basic Francoist theory [see above], the word "perfect," thrown inconspicuously into the middle of an unrelated sentence, reverses all that and somehow demonstrates that you really understood it all along? How does that one work exactly? Does the word have an in depth internal dialogue that the rest of us weren't privy to?

I'm guessing you don't even read your own essays? The core of your essay (In case I'm the only person who's ever read it, which is highly likely), is that you guys won because you weren't destroyed and that neither side accomplished their goals. In my essay, I showed how Vox has accomplished it's goals and how Pacifica has not, therefore, as the writer of your essay should state if he wasn't a hypocrite, Vox is therefore currently winning this war.

Also lol @ not calling it a war.

The core of the Great Patriotic War and You essay was a description of the war. The section addressing "goals" was addressing the common 'coaluetion' argument that they won because they achieved their goal of protecting LUE. In response I pointed out that it wasn't and that they didn't achieve their goal. To address the stalemate argument I then went on to discuss the Orders' goals and note that we didn't achieve them. I noted that one might be tempted as a result to call it a stalemate, but since this wasn't the measure of victory I was taking I wouldn't be (if I had taken this position on victory I would have been forced to agree; I never discussed our destruction anywhere in the 'who won' section of the essay). I then went on to assert that the Order won a military victory, and it was through this that I argued we won the war.

"Taking these points to their logical conclusion therefore leaves us with a simple analogy of the coaluetion as the Black Knight and the Orders as King Arthur: "Oh, oh, I see, running away then. You yellow [censoreds]! Come back here and take what's coming to you. I'll bite your legs off!""

This is the last line of my essay on the matter. What do we see in it? Is there any discussion of objectives? No. Of the Orders' surviving? No. Only of the military situation between the two -- the crippled Black Knight claiming victory because the victorious King Arthur decided his primary interests lay elsewhere.

[Branimir]

More then enough people know the name Branimir and of his legendary debating skills. I will say no more.

Stop it, your making me blush