Conquer Club

Ha! Omniphobe! Brilliant....no-one's ever called me that before.

Actually, Nappy, I decide it was wrong of me not to read your posts on the thread which is about me sharing my views. SO on this thread I have decided to read your posts.
The answer to your first question is covered over in the Forum games under Clapper Cleanses. Look for the alliterative Curls's Chronicle.
The answer to your second question is : not on a first date. And before you ask, no I can't ask if she's got a sister.

And in response to your subsequent post: I did consider adding "omnibore", but decided the pun was too complex.

Seriously, mate, you're well-read, you're bright. Why aren't you more likeable?
Now I'm not a deeply moral person myself, but I do try to adhere to a simple rule: I try to be the sort of person I'd be happy to meet, and (in time) proud to know.

Can you seriously look in a mirror and say "I'd be friends with a guy like that"?
An honest answer would have to be, I think, "Not unless I like arseholes".

Please don't take that as a flame - it looks to me as if you have the potential to be a gem of a bloke, but you miss it by several a.u. at the moment. You have achieved the unique position of being the only "foe" on my list who's there purely because I began to feel nauseous on reading your posts.

Move over, Nappy - Creep Talk just joined you. I hope you two are very happy together.

jonesthecurl wrote:And in response to your subsequent post: I did consider adding "omnibore", but decided the pun was too complex.

Seriously, mate, you're well-read, you're bright. Why aren't you more likeable?
Now I'm not a deeply moral person myself, but I do try to adhere to a simple rule: I try to be the sort of person I'd be happy to meet, and (in time) proud to know.

Can you seriously look in a mirror and say "I'd be friends with a guy like that"?
An honest answer would have to be, I think, "Not unless I like arseholes".

Please don't take that as a flame - it looks to me as if you have the potential to be a gem of a bloke, but you miss it by several a.u. at the moment. You have achieved the unique position of being the only "foe" on my list who's there purely because I began to feel nauseous on reading your posts.

I get angry easily, and it's righteous anger, or so I think. To be hated by the world is the place of the Platonic rationalist cum Tragic hero which I aspire (not claim, I'm not quite that arrogant) to be. I reason, and I have a strong sense of the ethical. I don't always have the strength to live up to my own moral standards, but when I see some things...like PLAYER's post, in which Objective Truth is sullied and spat on, my response to which caused you to bar me, well, this kind of anti-intellectualism just, well, it just gets me livid. If PLAYER had been Athenian 2300 years ago, she would have voted to execute Socrates. I don't think her ilk ought to get away with spreading their sophism, and if it requires me to go fucking mental and say things which may be offensive to more sensitive souls in order to put them back in their miserable Thrasymachian place, so be it: it's what I think is right.

For the record, I've always liked you and found you to be an amiable chap. I don't know why you think I'm such an arsehole quite honestly. I don't know, maybe it's my problem.

Hehe, my greek teacher once said he always striped out all the names on the ballot for elections and put "Socrates" in giant red letters over it. With the new electronic voting it sadly can't be done anymore.

Legend. I'm going to do that when I can vote.

Napoleon Ier wrote:Legend. I'm going to do that when I can vote.

I've wanted to do it but these machines don't give you the oppurtunity. I just cast a blanc vote instead.

Napoleon Ier wrote: I get angry easily, and it's righteous anger, or so I think. To be hated by the world is the place of the Platonic rationalist cum Tragic hero which I aspire (not claim, I'm not quite that arrogant) to be. I reason, and I have a strong sense of the ethical. I don't always have the strength to live up to my own moral standards, but when I see some things...like PLAYER's post, in which Objective Truth is sullied and spat on, my response to which caused you to bar me, well, this kind of anti-intellectualism just, well, it just gets me livid. If PLAYER had been Athenian 2300 years ago, she would have voted to execute Socrates. I don't think her ilk ought to get away with spreading their sophism, and if it requires me to go fucking mental and say things which may be offensive to more sensitive souls in order to put them back in their miserable Thrasymachian place, so be it: it's what I think is right.

For the record, I've always liked you and found you to be an amiable chap. I don't know why you think I'm such an arsehole quite honestly. I don't know, maybe it's my problem.

The underlined part caught my attention; does this mean you intend to be undone by your own rationality? Because, if you read greek tragities, that is what happens. Oedipus[sp?], need I say more?

He means he fancies being martyred for his "rational" standpoint.

jonesthecurl wrote:He means he fancies being martyred for his "rational" standpoint.

I thought that is what he meant, but it didn't come across that way. I read it as he wanted to be hung by the tangeled web of tortured logic he created to engare the illogical, much after the fashion of the Tragic Hero who is done in by hubris.

Nappy, you can't put capitals in front of words like "objective" and "truth" and turn them into a proper noun.
IF "Objective Truth" were so easy to spot, you wouldn't be arguing with, well, anyone.
"Sophism" means nothing ultimately but appreciating knowledge (or indeed "Objective Truth"). True, the root of the word has degenerated into "Sophistry" and "sophisticated" in English these days, not to mention "settee" (sorry I mean "sopha").

I very mcuh doubt that Player would have voted for the death of just about anyone, whenever she'd been incarnated.

Snorri1234 wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:Legend. I'm going to do that when I can vote.

I've wanted to do it but these machines don't give you the oppurtunity. I just cast a blanc vote instead.

They shold be required to add a "GFY" option.

jonesthecurl wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:Legend. I'm going to do that when I can vote.

I've wanted to do it but these machines don't give you the oppurtunity. I just cast a blanc vote instead.

They shold be required to add a "GFY" option.

Massiv word.

Jenos Ridan wrote:

jonesthecurl wrote:He means he fancies being martyred for his "rational" standpoint.

I thought that is what he meant, but it didn't come across that way. I read it as he wanted to be hung by the tangeled web of tortured logic he created to engare the illogical, much after the fashion of the Tragic Hero who is done in by hubris.

Or we could settle for just hanging him.

No, I think the "tragic" bit comes from the audience (in this case himself) knowing that there is no happy ending coming, as a logical and inescapable consequence of the internal logic of the story. A bit like in the Morte D'Arthur, where Arthur's fate is sealed as soon as he sleeps with his half-sister. (I couldn't use a genuine greek tragedy as an example without going away and doing some reading).

Last time I sat down and read one was way back in my sophmore drama class, Oedipus Rex.

I'm content to let him have all the rope he likes.

Jenos Ridan wrote:Last time I sat down and read one was way back in my sophmore drama class, Oedipus Rex.

I'm content to let him have all the rope he likes.

You're tragically misinterpreting the central absurdist theme of the play.

Napoleon Ier wrote:

Jenos Ridan wrote:Last time I sat down and read one was way back in my sophmore drama class, Oedipus Rex.

I'm content to let him have all the rope he likes.

You're tragically misinterpreting the central absurdist theme of the play.

I think you're tragically misinterpreting life.

Wow...

I thought that we'd lost Nap-Nap for good.

In an odd way, I'm kind of happy he's back. Local Colour if nothing else...

Dancing Mustard wrote:Wow...

I thought that we'd lost Nap-Nap for good.

In an odd way, I'm kind of happy he's back. Local Colour if nothing else...

I know what you mean. He brings sort off a much needed intellectual controversial viewpoint here. I disagree with him almost always but at least he isn't a fucking moron who barely manages to post comprehensible stuff. (And I'm not even talking about the ones who don't at all.)

Napoleon Ier wrote:like PLAYER's post, in which Objective Truth is sullied and spat on, my response to which caused you to bar me, well, this kind of anti-intellectualism just, well, it just gets me livid. If PLAYER had been Athenian 2300 years ago, she would have voted to execute Socrates. I don't think her ilk ought to get away with spreading their sophism, and if it requires me to go fucking mental and say things which may be offensive to more sensitive souls in order to put them back in their miserable Thrasymachian place, so be it: it's what I think is right.

I almost missed this post.

Every scientist, myself included, every person of sense bows to Socrates. But remember one of his prime precepts ... that you examine before you condemn.

You have done neither.

.. worse, you claim to know truth while denying and decrying any attempt at examining your ideas. That is not knowledge. It is not even ignorance, it is denial of truth, which is the greatest lie of all.

The mature and intelligent person is capable of admitting they are wrong without rancor. The immature person is incapable of even admitting that they might be wrong and cannot avoid anger.

Napoleon Ier wrote:

jonesthecurl wrote:And in response to your subsequent post: I did consider adding "omnibore", but decided the pun was too complex.

Seriously, mate, you're well-read, you're bright. Why aren't you more likeable?
Now I'm not a deeply moral person myself, but I do try to adhere to a simple rule: I try to be the sort of person I'd be happy to meet, and (in time) proud to know.

Can you seriously look in a mirror and say "I'd be friends with a guy like that"?
An honest answer would have to be, I think, "Not unless I like arseholes".

Please don't take that as a flame - it looks to me as if you have the potential to be a gem of a bloke, but you miss it by several a.u. at the moment. You have achieved the unique position of being the only "foe" on my list who's there purely because I began to feel nauseous on reading your posts.

I get angry easily, and it's righteous anger, or so I think. To be hated by the world is the place of the Platonic rationalist cum Tragic hero which I aspire (not claim, I'm not quite that arrogant) to be. I reason, and I have a strong sense of the ethical. I don't always have the strength to live up to my own moral standards, but when I see some things...like PLAYER's post, in which Objective Truth is sullied and spat on, my response to which caused you to bar me, well, this kind of anti-intellectualism just, well, it just gets me livid. If PLAYER had been Athenian 2300 years ago, she would have voted to execute Socrates. I don't think her ilk ought to get away with spreading their sophism, and if it requires me to go fucking mental and say things which may be offensive to more sensitive souls in order to put them back in their miserable Thrasymachian place, so be it: it's what I think is right.

For the record, I've always liked you and found you to be an amiable chap. I don't know why you think I'm such an arsehole quite honestly. I don't know, maybe it's my problem.

I am, in general, an amiable chap.

You, if we are to believe the persona that emerges from your CC posts are not.

You are a homophobe.
A xenophobe.
A racist.
Virging on being a fascist politically.
Pompous.
Conceited.
Arrogant.
Foul-mouthed.
A self-righteous zealot.
A misogynist.
Blind to the possibility that anyoe else's point of view might have some validity.
I could go on.

I hope that a lot of this is just e-posing in a neo-tech automorphing puffery sort of fashion (to use the sort of neologisms you often manufacture ).
If so stop it.

Not flaming: you did ask why I thought you were such an arsehole, and I was just sharing my views, which is my function on this thread.

What is your view on exams and tests?

jonesthecurl wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:

jonesthecurl wrote:And in response to your subsequent post: I did consider adding "omnibore", but decided the pun was too complex.

Seriously, mate, you're well-read, you're bright. Why aren't you more likeable?
Now I'm not a deeply moral person myself, but I do try to adhere to a simple rule: I try to be the sort of person I'd be happy to meet, and (in time) proud to know.

Can you seriously look in a mirror and say "I'd be friends with a guy like that"?
An honest answer would have to be, I think, "Not unless I like arseholes".

Please don't take that as a flame - it looks to me as if you have the potential to be a gem of a bloke, but you miss it by several a.u. at the moment. You have achieved the unique position of being the only "foe" on my list who's there purely because I began to feel nauseous on reading your posts.

I get angry easily, and it's righteous anger, or so I think. To be hated by the world is the place of the Platonic rationalist cum Tragic hero which I aspire (not claim, I'm not quite that arrogant) to be. I reason, and I have a strong sense of the ethical. I don't always have the strength to live up to my own moral standards, but when I see some things...like PLAYER's post, in which Objective Truth is sullied and spat on, my response to which caused you to bar me, well, this kind of anti-intellectualism just, well, it just gets me livid. If PLAYER had been Athenian 2300 years ago, she would have voted to execute Socrates. I don't think her ilk ought to get away with spreading their sophism, and if it requires me to go fucking mental and say things which may be offensive to more sensitive souls in order to put them back in their miserable Thrasymachian place, so be it: it's what I think is right.

For the record, I've always liked you and found you to be an amiable chap. I don't know why you think I'm such an arsehole quite honestly. I don't know, maybe it's my problem.

I am, in general, an amiable chap.

You, if we are to believe the persona that emerges from your CC posts are not.

You are a homophobe.
A xenophobe.
A racist.
Virging on being a fascist politically.
Pompous.
Conceited.
Arrogant.
Foul-mouthed.
A self-righteous zealot.
A misogynist.
Blind to the possibility that anyoe else's point of view might have some validity.
I could go on.

I hope that a lot of this is just e-posing in a neo-tech automorphing puffery sort of fashion (to use the sort of neologisms you often manufacture ).
If so stop it.

Not flaming: you did ask why I thought you were such an arsehole, and I was just sharing my views, which is my function on this thread.

Jones;

What the f*ck do you expect from the Franks? They've always been prissy and conceited. Besides, what sort of retard throws his axe at the enemy?

Ah, the voice of reason.

Thor-arth, you have all of Nappy's charm, but none of his brains.