Vyper Posted May 21, 2009 Report Share Posted May 21, 2009 This is hilarious, good job revealing this to the world Raja.Bad form CSN, no cookies for you. we have no need for cookies when there is a never ending supply of bacon and drinking of farkistan beer... along with wimminz... so cookies can be sacrificed to the Great Heretic A_T Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smurthwaite Posted May 21, 2009 Report Share Posted May 21, 2009 (edited) we have no need for cookies when there is a never ending supply of bacon and drinking of farkistan beer... along with wimminz... so cookies can be sacrificed to the Great Heretic A_T So we're back to proclaiming how evil AT is? He said he would shoot me in the back of the head if he caught me ruining his repuation in public again. I told you he was the nicest guy in CSN. edit: my fingers didn't work right the first time. Edited May 21, 2009 by smurthwaite Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerdge Posted May 21, 2009 Report Share Posted May 21, 2009 I take comparisons to the "Hegemony" personally, and will do whatever I can to assure you that you have misinterpreted our behavior. Jerdge, I am definitely worried about your subtle accusatory assessment of CSN. You have definitely invoked the history of CSN as an oppressive alliance bent on siding with the powers-that-be to flex its muscles over the little guys of the cyberverse. You have totally called us out. You do realize that I didn't even mention CSN, don't you? In fact, I didn't even check the Alliance Affiliation of the people that were having that attitude I was hinting to. Even now I can't tell whether the majority of them are actually in CSN, or not, and I don't want to know, because I don't care. Moreover, I was talking of individual behaviours - that put together do create a climate, but that in my words and in my thoughts weren't linked to any government, alliance or organization whatsoever. If I had something in mind - honestly - was to refute the hope that Karma is going to change the planet for good, and to save us all. I don't believe that Karma is much going to change our community for good (nor for bad), but anyway I certainly don't place the blame for that on CSN (fun facts: I am in Karma as well...) Then your opinion is, by fact, useless. My opinion over the facts that happened between CSN, GDA and Rajistani? It isn't "useless", it's "non expressed" (and non existent, anyway). Again, I wasn't talking of those facts, but of the interventions in this discussion. I assure you that I read most of them quite carefully and some of them were indeed rude, albeit at different degrees (for instance: someone replied to someone else questioning their proficiency in their basic language courses, and later on flat out saying that their opinion was "useless"). Of course, rudeness is just a matter of opinion and sensibility, I don't claim that my take on the matter has to be considered gold. [ooc] I anyway like your style. By the way, I am not English native - were you wondering about my reading comprehension. [/ooc] Have you heard of the "failure to state" fallacy? It's also known as "having your cake". It's where you make some vague reference to a point in the hopes that your audience will pick up where you're going with it but leaves your opposition powerless to address what you have said because then all you have to do is say "I didn't say that, you're putting words in my mouth". It pisses people off. Even despite the image that you've come in as some peaceful commentator in this thread, you're going to leave people staring at you in quiet anger. I didn't know of that fallacy (thanks for explaining it to me). I see how it can be applied to the analysis of my interventions, but I also see that you will have to assume my bad faith for that operation to make sense. One can in good faith have the intention to speak without targeting anybody in particular, just to try trigger some improvement. This last thing is what I have been trying to do each of the last 718 days, by the way. Finally, my respect to CaptainImpavid for his wonderful resume of the thread. I think that hizzy and Stumpy - or am I mixing identities? - may have found a competitor... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goose Posted May 21, 2009 Report Share Posted May 21, 2009 Snip... So, basically, you're trying to start a discussion about the greater moral outcome of Karma's victory in a topic that is not about that? It is one misguided individual from GDA that has called out CSN using false assumptions and outright ignoring things I told him in query. Completely ignoring my offer to work with him on any nation that joined CSN after the message was mistakenly sent out. He has added on a bit about our declarations being against innocent nations that were in compliance with the terms before they were attacked. Despite it being two weeks since the terms were announced, and several messages to offenders from GOD, GDA, and ourselves, 60+ nations remained non-compliant as of last week Thursday when GOD and CSN got together to discuss the issue. That same Thursday, we met with GDA government officials and made our intentions clear that those nations that continued to be non-compliant by Sunday night would be attacked until they complied with the terms. Sunday afternoon, the original list was checked and a total of 27 nations remained non-compliant. Those nations were then forwarded to our membership and declared open targets with the instructions to double-check to see that the nation still hadn't complied with terms before declaring and to send a PM with a link to the terms after declaring stating our intent to give them peace once they've complied. Please forgive our rather aggressive response to this, as it is simply libelous and we are quite offended by having our name smeared in this manner. I can appreciate your desire to discuss what you think of as the greater moral issues surrounding the Karma victory and the propaganda associated with Karma, but I feel this thread is not the place. Especially if you are unwilling to set it within the context of this conversation by citing specific examples. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerdge Posted May 21, 2009 Report Share Posted May 21, 2009 So, basically, you're trying to start a discussion about the greater moral outcome of Karma's victory in a topic that is not about that? Commenting on the behaviour I observe in a discussion is certainly on topic in that same discussion, otherwise it would be impossible to discuss any behaviour (unless the discussion had its own discussing as its subject - thus being an useless absurdity, of course). I can appreciate your desire to discuss what you think of as the greater moral issues surrounding the Karma victory and the propaganda associated with Karma, but I feel this thread is not the place. Especially if you are unwilling to set it within the context of this conversation by citing specific examples. As stated above this is (IMO) an appropriate place to discuss how this conversation was handled. I am sorry but I will not cite specific examples, for the reasons I mentioned in my other posts. Anyway, from my perspective my presence here is now pointless (assuming it wasn't some time in the past...) The original topic isn't being discussed anymore (Rajistani apparently left the thread); I think that I can't convince anybody of those that I didn't convince already (that there was something wrong going on here). I will thus take my leave. If anybody wants to make sure that I read some other later reply, please spend a minute in sending me a PM about it (thanks). [ooc][Life's too short...][/ooc] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpacingOutMan Posted May 21, 2009 Report Share Posted May 21, 2009 My opinion over the facts that happened between CSN, GDA and Rajistani? It isn't "useless", it's "non expressed" (and non existent, anyway). I assure you sir, it is "useless". When you asserted your commentary on the current issue at hand, you revealed your opinion in this thread (implicitly). You took discussions that were already heated and contextual in one sense, and then skewed them into something altogether completely out of context. Maybe that isn't useless, but that sure is expressed. Again, I wasn't talking of those facts, but of the interventions in this discussion. I assure you that I read most of them quite carefully and some of them were indeed rude, You sure like to take things of context don't you? Both sides (Rajistani and CSN) said things that were under the heat of the moment. albeit at different degrees (for instance: someone replied to someone else questioning their proficiency in their basic language courses, and later on flat out saying that their opinion was "useless"). You see, sir, when an additional person steps in on the issue acting like they know exactly what's going on (and by that I mean commenting on something they have no stake in and have no idea about), it is hard to see their opinion has being worth more than a conglomeration of pixelated text. Moreover, when things have been continually written over and over and over again where certain facts are presented continuously and one does not notice that, their comprehension of certain languages should come into question. Of course, rudeness is just a matter of opinion and sensibility, I don't claim that my take on the matter has to be considered gold. I find it to be quite a gem. [ooc] I anyway like your style. By the way, I am not English native - were you wondering about my reading comprehension. [/ooc] [ooc]Likewise. Is it safe to assume that you understand the English language to a certain degree, but I apologize that I lumped you as an American player. Most times there are blatant signs to one's weaknesses in a language... maybe that's a compliment to your education in the English language?[/ooc] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 Please forgive our rather aggressive response to this, as it is simply libelous and we are quite offended by having our name smeared in this manner. I've been quiet about your abuse of this term. Please stop using it in this way though. You can't libel a nation. Definition. 1 a: a written statement in which a plaintiff in certain courts sets forth the cause of action or the relief sought b archaic : a handbill especially attacking or defaming someone2 a: a written or oral defamatory statement or representation that conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression b (1): a statement or representation published without just cause and tending to expose another to public contempt (2): defamation of a person by written or representational means (3): the publication of blasphemous, treasonable, seditious, or obscene writings or pictures (4): the act, tort, or crime of publishing such a libel Notice how it speaks to defamation of a person. Unless you are accusing him of treason, which doesn't seem to me to work as his nation is different from yours. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delta1212 Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 (edited) I've been quiet about your abuse of this term. Please stop using it in this way though.You can't libel a nation. Definition. Notice how it speaks to defamation of a person. Unless you are accusing him of treason, which doesn't seem to me to work as his nation is different from yours. That definition doesn't require it to be against a person... Edited May 22, 2009 by Delta1212 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 That definition doesn't require it to be against a person... Sure, it could be blasphemous, treasonable, seditious, or obscene as well. Which I'm pretty sure isn't what he meant. lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delta1212 Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 Sure, it could be blasphemous, treasonable, seditious, or obscene as well. Which I'm pretty sure isn't what he meant. lol. Umm... 2 a: a written or oral defamatory statement or representation that conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression I'm thinking it's that, since that is a complete self-contained definition and is exactly this situation... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpacingOutMan Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 Regardless let's let this die as Jerdge put it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.