TehChron Posted October 17, 2009 Report Share Posted October 17, 2009 Thanks to will and Heft, who (despite will's thought that I am enamored with Ivan, which is far from the truth) chose to give me real answers. I can appreciate that. The rest of you could learn from them. I am grateful for your approval of my comrades. It means a lot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deadshot Posted October 17, 2009 Report Share Posted October 17, 2009 Thanks to will and Heft, who (despite will's thought that I am enamored with Ivan, which is far from the truth) chose to give me real answers. I can appreciate that. The rest of you could learn from them. Hey I said he was a good leader. Not as specific, but the same point nonetheless. You are welcome Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youwish959 Posted October 17, 2009 Report Share Posted October 17, 2009 I have a question for Chron. Since when were we commies? my comrades. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D34th Posted October 17, 2009 Report Share Posted October 17, 2009 When NSO will declare war against TJO? And when that's happens will Doitzel discover that he is Moldavi's son? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevin32891 Posted October 17, 2009 Report Share Posted October 17, 2009 When NSO will declare war against TJO? And when that's happens will Doitzel discover that he is Moldavi's son? Technically since Doppelganger is the Dark Lord now Dotzil is his father. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TehChron Posted October 17, 2009 Report Share Posted October 17, 2009 I have a question for Chron. Since when were we commies? Since you started introducing Anthony as a communist, and everyone knows hes the real decision maker. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan Moldavi Posted October 17, 2009 Report Share Posted October 17, 2009 Why do people love Ivan so much? I've never understood this, in all of my three years in CN. Obviously you have had blinders on for the vast majority of those three years because I have been far from "loved" for most of it. People might acknowledge that at some point in the past I contributed somewhat to the development of the game (this is the OOC forum) by creating the sanctioned alliance system and the audits, by providing the Cyberverse with drama and debate and the occasional war, and by establishing a culture (not being the be all end all of it, but establishing it just the same) that has carried over for the majority of the life of the game. I am respected because I am able, when the need arises, to instill pride in those that follow me and can effectively utilize the rhetoric of warfare, political and militant, to place at least caution into the hearts and minds of my enemies. I am able to utilize those that serve with me in efficient manner and place them according to their talents, and I am not afraid of acknowledging when there are specific areas in which some are better than myself. But loved? I don't believe I have ever been loved. Those that are loved seek approval. I do not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iotupa Posted October 17, 2009 Report Share Posted October 17, 2009 Obviously you have had blinders on for the vast majority of those three years because I have been far from "loved" for most of it. People might acknowledge that at some point in the past I contributed somewhat to the development of the game (this is the OOC forum) by creating the sanctioned alliance system and the audits, by providing the Cyberverse with drama and debate and the occasional war, and by establishing a culture (not being the be all end all of it, but establishing it just the same) that has carried over for the majority of the life of the game. I am respected because I am able, when the need arises, to instill pride in those that follow me and can effectively utilize the rhetoric of warfare, political and militant, to place at least caution into the hearts and minds of my enemies. I am able to utilize those that serve with me in efficient manner and place them according to their talents, and I am not afraid of acknowledging when there are specific areas in which some are better than myself.But loved? I don't believe I have ever been loved. Those that are loved seek approval. I do not. A good answer, all in all. But I would certainly say a number of your followers have in the past or still do love you, or as much as one can love a character in a game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan Moldavi Posted October 17, 2009 Report Share Posted October 17, 2009 A good answer, all in all. But I would certainly say a number of your followers have in the past or still do love you, or as much as one can love a character in a game. They love the idea of what I embody, not the man. I am a harsh and cruel master. I am not friends with many and I don't typically take part in the jokes of the common soldier, but I will send my troops, as they are, to bleed and die alongside any that call me comrade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iotupa Posted October 17, 2009 Report Share Posted October 17, 2009 They love the idea of what I embody, not the man. I am a harsh and cruel master. I am not friends with many and I don't typically take part in the jokes of the common soldier, but I will send my troops, as they are, to bleed and die alongside any that call me comrade. Your honesty is respectable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Comrade Goby Posted October 17, 2009 Report Share Posted October 17, 2009 How can you not love Ivan? He forms NPO's and doesn't afraid of anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cornelius Posted October 18, 2009 Report Share Posted October 18, 2009 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Diorno Posted October 18, 2009 Report Share Posted October 18, 2009 I, even I, have a catechism for the copacetic New Sith Order. If, in a suppositious affair, an oppugnent engagement should happen to present itself in a manner akin to the tapis of the karma war. Where by a an abettor or collaborator appurtenant to NSO consort, should find itself deep in lethiferous tribulation, and infelicitous enough to acquire its paraphernalia to the bereaved amalgam. Would the NSO offer propoundment allevation against said hypothetical pugnacious affiliation? (again purely suppositious) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crushtania Posted October 18, 2009 Report Share Posted October 18, 2009 Jack Diorno: confused about more than one thing since 2007 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corinan Posted October 18, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 18, 2009 I, even I, have a catechism for the copacetic New Sith Order. If, in a suppositious affair, an oppugnent engagement should happen to present itself in a manner akin to the tapis of the karma war. Where by a an abettor or collaborator appurtenant to NSO consort, should find itself deep in lethiferous tribulation, and infelicitous enough to acquire its paraphernalia to the bereaved amalgam. Would the NSO offer propoundment allevation against said hypothetical pugnacious affiliation? (again purely suppositious) .........yes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Diorno Posted October 18, 2009 Report Share Posted October 18, 2009 .........yes? Very interesting. Then, if one examines the conceptualist narrative of the NSO, one is faced with a choice: either reject patriarchialist dematerialism or conclude that NSO may be used to oppress the underprivileged. However, dialectic socialism suggests that truth has intrinsic meaning. You may have to choose between cultural precapitalist theory and postcultural dialectic theory. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crushtania Posted October 18, 2009 Report Share Posted October 18, 2009 Very interesting. Then, if one examines the conceptualist narrative of the NSO, one is faced with a choice: either reject patriarchialist dematerialism or conclude that NSO may be used to oppress the underprivileged. However, dialectic socialism suggests that truth has intrinsic meaning. You may have to choose between cultural precapitalist theory and postcultural dialectic theory. Yes yes, pip pip and tally ho! You've presented a highly intriguing ... contribution there. The appellant discourse that abounds on Bob has been fortuitously enhanced by this probing analysis of meta-narrative themes. Or something. But one must ask, in a poststructuralist, Marxist context, how does the oppression create the subject of objectification of power? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevin32891 Posted October 18, 2009 Report Share Posted October 18, 2009 I, even I, have a catechism for the copacetic New Sith Order. If, in a suppositious affair, an oppugnent engagement should happen to present itself in a manner akin to the tapis of the karma war. Where by a an abettor or collaborator appurtenant to NSO consort, should find itself deep in lethiferous tribulation, and infelicitous enough to acquire its paraphernalia to the bereaved amalgam. Would the NSO offer propoundment allevation against said hypothetical pugnacious affiliation? (again purely suppositious) For a minute I thought that was Vlad. And what are you saying? I'm just a humble grunt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Diorno Posted October 18, 2009 Report Share Posted October 18, 2009 Yes yes, pip pip and tally ho! You've presented a highly intriguing ... contribution there. The appellant discourse that abounds on Bob has been fortuitously enhanced by this probing analysis of meta-narrative themes. Or something. But one must ask, in a poststructuralist, Marxist context, how does the oppression create the subject of objectification of power? The premise of patriarchialist dematerialism suggests that reality is capable of significance. Marx uses the term ‘pretextual narrative’ to denote the role of the reader as observer. Therefore, a number of dematerialisms concerning conceptualist narrative exist. Sontag’s critique of semantic Marxism implies that sexuality, ironically, has significance, but only if art is interchangeable with reality; otherwise, we can assume that the law is capable of significant form. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crushtania Posted October 18, 2009 Report Share Posted October 18, 2009 The premise of patriarchialist dematerialism suggests that reality is capable of significance. Marx uses the term ‘pretextual narrative’ to denote the role of the reader as observer. Therefore, a number of dematerialisms concerning conceptualist narrative exist. Sontag’s critique of semantic Marxism implies that sexuality, ironically, has significance, but only if art is interchangeable with reality; otherwise, we can assume that the law is capable of significant form. Ahh yes, but what of Barthes' interpretation as the "Death of the Author" or as re-contextualized in a postmodern discourse, the "Birth of the Reader?" Then the law is merely deconceptualized from the grander contextual narrative of societal functions under patriarchy and capitalist and post-capitalist orders. What do you make of this interpretation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Diorno Posted October 18, 2009 Report Share Posted October 18, 2009 Ahh yes, but what of Barthes' interpretation as the "Death of the Author" or as re-contextualized in a postmodern discourse, the "Birth of the Reader?" Then the law is merely deconceptualized from the grander contextual narrative of societal functions under patriarchy and capitalist and post-capitalist orders. What do you make of this interpretation? If post-capatilist objectivism holds, the works of Barthes are an example of mythopoetical socialism. In a sense, the premise of textual deappropriation suggests that the significance of the writer is social comment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crushtania Posted October 18, 2009 Report Share Posted October 18, 2009 If post-capatilist objectivism holds, the works of Barthes are an example of mythopoetical socialism. In a sense, the premise of textual deappropriation suggests that the significance of the writer is social comment. But of course! The post-capitalist objectivism, if presupposed does indeed exist as a mythopoetical structure, it can be regarded a synthesis of appropriated commentary from the ideologies of the political reader as writer. Touche, Mr. Diorno. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Kshatriya Posted October 18, 2009 Report Share Posted October 18, 2009 Less Gramsci-on-meth please. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
New Frontier Posted October 18, 2009 Report Share Posted October 18, 2009 I, even I, have a catechism for the copacetic New Sith Order. If, in a suppositious affair, an oppugnent engagement should happen to present itself in a manner akin to the tapis of the karma war. Where by a an abettor or collaborator appurtenant to NSO consort, should find itself deep in lethiferous tribulation, and infelicitous enough to acquire its paraphernalia to the bereaved amalgam. Would the NSO offer propoundment allevation against said hypothetical pugnacious affiliation? (again purely suppositious) I lol'd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TehChron Posted October 19, 2009 Report Share Posted October 19, 2009 does ivan feel any remorse for destroying my alliance over and over again? He's kind of a turd for declaring on us with no reasons. 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.