Advertisement
by Consular » Sun Sep 23, 2018 6:32 am
by Lord Dominator » Sun Sep 23, 2018 1:20 pm
Consular wrote:Any further thoughts before I move to submit this at a completely arbitrary time in the near future?
by Linkin Nights » Mon Sep 24, 2018 4:39 pm
by Consular » Tue Sep 25, 2018 4:36 am
by Comlogical » Tue Sep 25, 2018 4:49 am
by Cormactopia Prime » Tue Sep 25, 2018 8:00 am
Linkin Nights wrote:<snip>
by Linkin Nights » Tue Sep 25, 2018 12:03 pm
Cormactopia Prime wrote:Did it really take that wall of text to say that you're trying to pretend you don't mind a condemnation, in hopes defenders and other anti-imperialists will buy the ridiculous attempt at reverse psychology and vote this down for you, when in reality you're going to oppose this for its "inaccuracies" just like you vehemently opposed the past condemnation attempts? Because that's all that wall of text says. It required no more words than I've just used.
Regarding the inaccuracies -- how about naming them? That's why we have this forum. Consular addressed all the inaccuracies NES brought up.
by Consular » Tue Sep 25, 2018 7:23 pm
by Sancta Romana Ecclesia » Wed Sep 26, 2018 5:09 am
Onderkelkia wrote:Alas, the LKE and our ally TNI have faced multiple failed attempts to condemn us previously. This seems to be the latest in that long line of attacks from disgruntled foes.
by Onderkelkia » Wed Sep 26, 2018 5:56 am
Sancta Romana Ecclesia wrote:Onderkelkia wrote:Alas, the LKE and our ally TNI have faced multiple failed attempts to condemn us previously. This seems to be the latest in that long line of attacks from disgruntled foes.
So the LKE is totally cool with getting condemned, but any attempt to do so will be viewed as an attack. Good to know.
by Sancta Romana Ecclesia » Wed Sep 26, 2018 6:52 am
Onderkelkia wrote:My characterisation, "attack", speaks to the purpose of the proposer, not any actual effect of the proposal. The LKE is capable of recognising the hostile intent behind the proposal even if the effect of condemnation is harmless at worst and beneficial at best.
Onderkelkia wrote:Unfortunately for you, the LKE has no worries about a condemnation.
Sancta Romana Ecclesia wrote:I'm against.
by Onderkelkia » Wed Sep 26, 2018 9:25 am
Sancta Romana Ecclesia wrote:Onderkelkia wrote:My characterisation, "attack", speaks to the purpose of the proposer, not any actual effect of the proposal. The LKE is capable of recognising the hostile intent behind the proposal even if the effect of condemnation is harmless at worst and beneficial at best.
If I don't really care about something, I don't write a response to it. At least not 8 paragraphs long.
Sancta Romana Ecclesia wrote:If I don't really care about something, I don't write a response to it.
by Syberis » Wed Sep 26, 2018 11:14 am
Zaolat wrote:WHO THE F*** IS SYBERIS
by Sancta Romana Ecclesia » Wed Sep 26, 2018 11:33 am
Onderkelkia wrote:In any case, it is perfectly possible to refute specific allegations contained within a condemnation, and even to oppose a specific condemnation due to the inaccuracies it contains, without being concerned about the consequences of a condemnation more generally. Those are two distinct positions.
Onderkelkia wrote:That is how you have just said that you decide what to post about, only posting responses in reply to things you "really care" about. If so, and you don't actually care about whether the LKE is annoyed by the resolution, then why are you posting here, vainly trying to tell the LKE what our views on condemnations are?
by Shrewtopia » Wed Sep 26, 2018 2:20 pm
Sancta Romana Ecclesia wrote:<_<
Either admit that you oppose the contents of this resolution and want to see it failed (since it contains harmful lies according to you), or admit that it does not matter either way (therefore it does not require addressing at length). If you oppose something, it means that you care to oppose this thing. And if all those inaccuracies "make little difference to the LKE's direct interests," then why do Emperor Emeritus, Lord High Steward, and Crown Prince all choose to address this resolution and at such ungodly lengths?
by Onderkelkia » Wed Sep 26, 2018 2:34 pm
Sancta Romana Ecclesia wrote:Onderkelkia wrote:In any case, it is perfectly possible to refute specific allegations contained within a condemnation, and even to oppose a specific condemnation due to the inaccuracies it contains, without being concerned about the consequences of a condemnation more generally. Those are two distinct positions.
1) Resolution is harmless.
2) It contains harmful distortions that need to be addressed.
These two cannot be true at the same time. That is my point.
Either admit that you oppose the contents of this resolution and want to see it failed (since it contains harmful lies according to you), or admit that it does not matter either way (therefore it does not require addressing at length). If you oppose something, it means that you care to oppose this thing. And if all those inaccuracies "make little difference to the LKE's direct interests," then why do Emperor Emeritus, Lord High Steward, and Crown Prince all choose to address this resolution and at such ungodly lengths?
Sancta Romana Ecclesia wrote:You are correct, I care about something. I care about that it appears as if you first produced a rebuttal to see this resolution defeated and then created an "I don't care" statement just in case your effort fails.
Sancta Romana Ecclesia wrote:I don't wish ill upon the LKE, I would very much like to focus on building a community than plotting the destruction of the existing one. I'm just boring that way.
by Consular » Wed Sep 26, 2018 7:09 pm
by Shrewtopia » Thu Sep 27, 2018 1:42 am
Onderkelkia wrote:For the most part, this thread is merely a collection of the LKE's assorted enemies coming to wallow in their own frustration and inability. If the Security Council does indeed choose to pass the resolution in spite of its errors and bad style, then we shall gladly take the recognition and the population boost.
by Syberis » Thu Sep 27, 2018 5:56 am
Zaolat wrote:WHO THE F*** IS SYBERIS
by Phthisis » Thu Sep 27, 2018 6:29 pm
by Alkasia » Wed Oct 03, 2018 3:56 pm
Koth wrote:Alk resembles some sort of slime mold that asexually reproduces scum, as is standard for XKI natives
Cormactopia Prime wrote:You're silly. I miss the XKI veterans who knew how to appropriately deal with raiders.
Kanglia wrote:Can confirm lynching Alk is the most satisfying thing. :p
Sarakart wrote:What a time to be alive. Welcome to the legislative revolution, the liberation wars have begun.
Benevolent Thomas wrote:"Something you thought you'd never see for $3000, Alex."
by Consular » Wed Oct 03, 2018 6:56 pm
by Lord Dominator » Wed Oct 03, 2018 7:33 pm
Consular wrote:Basically hoping the liberation spam will blow over before I submit this.
by Consular » Sun May 26, 2019 9:12 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement