Ghosts of Stalin
Pages
| Author | Topic: Ghosts of Stalin |
|---|---|
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Monday, May 29 2006 12:44
Profile
Homepage
I'd like to take TM's argument apart and see if I can understand it and why it didn't work. I'm doing this more as an exercise as a writing teacher — since I do teach essay writing as part of an SAT class — than anything else, really. Pleasant answer. Not much, but pleasant. I, too, think a blend of crap with ambrosia would possess a more appealing boquet of fragrances. I'd call this fluff, because it does not make an argument. It identifies your name-calling position (socialism = ambrosia, capitalism = crap), but it does not actually make an argument. But then, I suppose the onus lies on me to prove why it's imperative for me to prove why this proposed "solution" is bad. But that's difficult, considering that you leave the crap-to-good ratio undefined You have still not begun to make an argument. but for any of capitalism to be preserved, the only moral assertion you could possibly make is that competition in a society should be awarded accordingly, 'socialism' being factored in to guarantee fair competition I take this to mean, basically, "If you have any capitalism, then competition in a society should be awarded accordingly." This makes no sense, and I'd like to dissect why. Let's try and rephrase that "then" part in the active voice: "One should award competition in a society accordingly." This has two problems: "award competition" and "accordingly." Do you mean reward competition? And according to what? I take "accordingly" to mean "in accordance with some principle," but I don't know what that principle is. This is simply poor word choice: you've used words that don't mean anything in context with each other. This is also kind of a weird assumption: capitalism cannot exist without competition of the kind that you're expecting based on your later discussion. I'd be more careful about stating exactly what you mean by "competition" straight out in order to make this part of the argument less leaky. Which, of course, is still a tricky assertion-- what about inheritance? Wasn't the father (or ideally mother/father in your postmodern utopia) fighting for his son's well-being when he did that much better than his competitors? Ah, but wait, his son still gets to go to the same schools as everyone else. But what if there's a private school that wants to compete with the socialized school? Is that contrary to competition? I understand that these are some of basic questions in attempting to create equality of opportunity in a situation that does not have equality of outcome, but it's still a leap from "Competition will exist, but the government will create an equal playing field" to "Inequality of outcome virtually guarantees inequality of opportunity," which seems to be where you started and where you went. It would be really nice if you filled in the gap explicitly: "competition" (by your definition) ensures inequality of outcome. Then show how this creates a contradiction: that capitalism must include competition, and competition creates inequality of outcome, which in turn creates inequality of opportunity, which means that there can't be a level playing field. Thus, capitalism and socialism together can't create fairness. But let's set practical difficulties aside, since I have no idea what shape your postmodern utopia will take precisely. I have no idea what makes a mix of socialism and capitalism "postmodern," but I suspect that you don't, either. I think that you've just thrown in this word because you like how it sounds, and you think that it makes you sound smart. This is either poor word-choice or a poorly-explained point. Either way, poor writing is detracting from your argument. What of the means of production? If competition is still a value, then every factory worker will still be working for her/himself. Competition has a value? Competiveness is still among society's values? Again, your poor word choice and awkward construction is making your point less clear. But if everyone is still fighting for the self (and has the possibility of reaping the rich rewards for doing so!), and is prompted to do so by the society's ideology and the gov't's methodology, then what is the imperative to maintain competition? That's "incentive," not "imperative." Again, poor word choice is making your point less clear. The people on top, after having struggled oh-so-valiantly to do so (well, hypothetically, anyway), will be the first ones to try and preserve their positions. This sentence makes sense, but it makes sense partly because I know how this argument goes, having considered it myself some time ago. Once I picked up on your main point — inequality of outcome guarantees inequality of opportunity, which kills all possibility of "fairness" — I didn't have to read the rest of the post to know what you were going to say. But let's continue. Competition in this sense ceases being a functional agent of meritocracy (if ever it was one-- hence the 'postmodern utopia') and becomes an ideological burden, which shifts the blame of exploitation to the exploited. This is the point where you really lose control of your language and of your rhetoric. It's not clear what "competition... being a functional agent of meritocracy" means. I do know that postmodern authors and critics have loved the term "agency," and I know that they use it rather vaguely sometimes, so I'm guessing that this is where you've gotten it. What this literally means, as far as I can tell, is that competition no longer causes meritocracy. In order for this to make sense, you have to fill a gap: competition creates social stratification. Competition, as you've imagined it, invariably creates richer and poorer classes. You also have to insert a summarizing sentence for the point that you've just made: the rich self-perpetuate if given the opportunity to do so. The rich help their friends and family, and they generally don't do so on the basis of merit, so the system doesn't end up being "fair." But there's another thing: you've only established, up to this point, that the rich and powerful will help people that they like, which mucks up any claim to meritocracy. How the hell do you get from "The rich will help their friends and family not entirely on the basis of merit" to "The poor will blame themselves for being poor"? Do you think that the poor don't know that the rich help out their friends and family not entirely on the basis of merit? Have you ever talked with someone who grew up in a low-income family? The poor know (indeed, all too well) that a mixed-socialist system isn't a pure meritocracy! They don't blame themselves for being poor, most of the time. The ones I've known have blamed the rich, because of favoritism! But even apart from that it will cause solvency challenges My first thought was that you were trying to dissolve something. My second thought was that you were suggesting that communism invariably leads to unpayable debt. Now I'm guessing that you're just saying, "Your proposed system may not solve anything," which isn't really what "solvency challenges" would mean, but meh. Poor word choice, again. your postmodern utopia has no reason to exist in comparison to, say, a communism (your "blend" minus all the capitalist stuff). I smell a transition to a proposed alternative! This is only the second time in your argument that I've actually been able to follow what's going on without trouble! If your assertion is that human nature will be a sabot in the gears of a communist society A sabot... a shoe? A shoe in the gears? What are you going on about? And that wasn't and wouldn't be my assertion, but whatever. then consider how humans thought in the dark ages. Hell, consider how they thought in the 80's I'm considering. You surely are talking about intellectual trends, not "how humans thought" — that is, movements of popular opinion. Again, poor word choice. Clearly, any changes in the way people think are artificed, but artificial is not the same as erroneous. In the context of human thought, human ideas are as real as one can possibly get. If the problem is the way people actually think-- ie, the current nature of most humans-- then the solution to make communism feasible is to determine the causes for damaging thoughts and work with the person to change those thought processes. Another massive leap: from "Changes of public opinion occur" to "Human nature itself can be changed deliberately." This is a counter-argument to an argument that I wouldn't make, though, so I won't go too much into it here. If human thought patterns were immutable, history would never have changed in the first place since people would always be reproducing the same circumstances. This completely doesn't follow, partly because you're confusing human ideas and human nature. If human thought patterns were somehow sacred and not to be touched, then who is to object to genocide or imperialism? Huh? Do you mean that people didn't object to them before and now they do? If so, say so explicitly. (Again, fill in the gaps!) If human nature is an impedement for the greatest good for all individuals, we must get rid of it. You mean, "change" it. Again, poor word choice is making your meaning obscure. ------ TM: My advice to you is to bring your writing back to basics. You're making a lot of errors in your word choices because you're trying to say things that sound fancy and scary without a really good grasp of what your advanced-vocab words mean. You can write everything that you're trying to say in a much simpler fashion, and I suggest that you do so in order to be understood. Also, your writing is plagued with gaps in reasoning that the reader has to fill in. Make sure that you build your argument with every appropriate step so that there aren't missing pieces. One way to do this is to make sure that you've built the entire argument in the abstract ("Competition creates stratification, stratification creates favoritism, favoritism mucks with meritocracy") in writing before you start inserting examples. Then don't delete the argument in the abstract! Those points will summarize your major examples. Your writing shows promise, but it really needs some work before it can be effective. EDIT: This is how I would respond to TM's argument, if anyone's wondering: this argument applies to any society, capitalist or not, that does not perfectly assign rewards solely on the basis of "merit" (whatever that is). Since it is not possible to create a real-world society that does perfectly assign rewards solely on the basis of merit, this critique applies to all societies with any potential for existence and cannot be used to judge between them. In other words, yeah, I guess so, but actual communism is at least as bad, as far false meritocracy goes. [ Monday, May 29, 2006 13:31: Message edited by: Kelandon ] -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
|
written Monday, May 29 2006 13:23
Profile
Homepage
LUKE... I AM YOUR FATHER -------------------- Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 3040
|
written Monday, May 29 2006 13:46
Profile
Kelandon, have you ever considered doing a similar analysis of TM's BoX scenarios? I think many people would be interested in something like that. Also, I don't understand Slartucker's post. [ Monday, May 29, 2006 13:47: Message edited by: wz. As ] -------------------- 5.0.1.0.0.0.0.1.0... Posts: 508 | Registered: Thursday, May 29 2003 07:00 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Monday, May 29 2006 14:15
Profile
Maybe he was hoping for a Kelanalysis? -------------------- quote: Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Monday, May 29 2006 14:23
Profile
Homepage
I'm fairly certain that I did such an analysis of something out of NTH (or possibly Canopy) at some point. I may have done it here, though, which means it's dead now. The crazy thing was that I was able to tease out what TM was trying to say, more or less, which I thought was going to be impossible. I had to do the same thing as I did above, though: correct misused words, fill gaps, and paraphrase. -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Monday, May 29 2006 14:33
Profile
TM, please define "solvency". The way you use it seems to be jargon. I was a post-doc in theoretical physics at Los Alamos National Lab, Universitaet Innsbruck, the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, and MIT, in that order over ten years. LANL and Innsbruck wouldn't count as the top of the pyramid except in some narrow fields, but I was there working in those. Everybody circulates around, giving seminars and going to conferences, so you gradually visit all of the major centers or get to know the people from them; academia was globalized long ago. After the three years at MIT I finally landed a faculty job, but if that hadn't come through I was looking at law school. Ten years as a post-doc is unusually long, and definitely too long. On the other hand in physics the pay is decent and no-one ever tells you what to do. [ Monday, May 29, 2006 14:34: Message edited by: Student of Trinity ] -------------------- We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
|
Councilor
Member # 6600
|
written Monday, May 29 2006 14:34
Profile
Homepage
Originally by wz.As: quote:But when Slartucker creates these sorts of short posts, it's not the word choice. It's the thought processes behind it! You either understand it on some subconscious level or you don't. :P Dikiyoba may or may not understand Slartucker's post. Dikiyoba will wait for an explanation to find out. Posts: 4346 | Registered: Friday, December 23 2005 08:00 |
|
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
|
written Monday, May 29 2006 14:48
Profile
Homepage
Dikiyoba is still wise. My post was an esoteric reference to the TM-Kel conflict encapsulated in my ChronoCross character pairings for the two of them. ...So, SoT is a professor! Makes sense. [ Monday, May 29, 2006 14:49: Message edited by: Anti-Fairy ] -------------------- Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00 |
|
BANNED
Member # 4
|
written Monday, May 29 2006 15:34
Profile
Homepage
quote:I'd like to assume that my opponent is wrong from the get-go and go on from there too. quote:You're on the internet. You don't have to explain that you don't give a crap. But for reference, I'd also like to go down as stating that my opponents are all intellectually impotent. quote:I'm saying that your proposed solution is entirely hollow since you don't really determine how much of either is needed. Why I spend most of my post on it is because it's too good to be true. quote:My justification is less a direct argument about what you said (for reasons above), and more an assumption I have to make since you basically don't. My reasoning is that if capitalism has ANY place in a society, it is for that reason and that reason alone. If you can provide another justification for it, it'd have been nice to have heard that before. quote:...wait. You leave a system totally undefined, and then question ME for not filling in blanks about something I'm forced to MAKE UP? That's cold. Fine: according to merit. In a society where rising above the competition equals reimbursement (aka a meritocracy), merit is the gauge by which deeds are given payment. Or, at least, that is the principal moral justification of capitalism, whose presence in your system was my self-assigned job to explain. quote:Wait a second-- if capitalism cannot even exist with the type of competition present, why is it such a stretch to put a name to it? Or, in other words-- you've done a rather fine job of filling in what gaps may not have been entirely self-evident for you. It'd only be fair if you give me leeway to do the same for you. quote:And I suspect many things about you I (read as: the moderation) chose to omit. For instance, I could say your policies are based on nothing but feel-good rhetoric whose only goal is to act pragmatically big-balled at coctail parties and bury the disadvantage in false promises and BS. But I won't. Honestly, it'd just be crude. (To answer your question-- well, more line your insult, but nevertheless-- I feel your utopia is postmodern because of the myth of unlimited potential that fell out of postmodernism. See, for example, Reagan. Which certainly doesn't fall from the actual written word of Wittgenstein, Derrida, Foucault, et al, but what from that era did? Essentially, postmodern globalism relies on the myth of constant growth, which is in-line with the meritocracy a capitalism promises.) quote:And yet you manage. quote:I used "imperative" and meant it. I do not look highly upon gov't officials or capitalists. quote:That's funny, because my post actually DID go on to say different things. quote: quote:Moving on... quote:Which is exactly what you were able to salvage from what I wrote before. quote:I'm saying that competition as an ideology makes this the only tenable conclusion. (For instance I wrote:) quote: quote:Wait-- let me get this straight. You're yelling at me for PoD Person's arguments? He was the one who said that the poor are perfectly happy, which I both denied, and stated what you're citing as one of the ONLY possibilities. I was not explaining how the poor actually think (except for when I explicitly said that they reject oppression). I was explaining how capitalism expects them to think. quote:Wrong. This word I gained from debating-- man, this is one of my idiosyncracies that is both common and not idiosyncratic. quote:Sabotage. Okay, THAT was a bit obscure. quote:Whatever's right. Honestly-- when I can't construct an argument from what you say, I dunno how I can be chided for it. And besides, even if you weren't going to assert this, SOMEONE was. It's a stock capitalist defense. quote:Well, that was my thought too, which is why I used the dark ages. But honestly-- as absurd as intellectuals in the 80's were, the common folk weren't that far behind. ("It's a good morning in America...") quote:I don't think anyone's arguing that human beings can grow wings by force of will, but on the other hand, nobody's arguing that the inability to grow wings by force of will is indicative of communism's failure-by-default either. What people define as human nature-- namely, greed-- can be changed. And if it can be changed in an individual, then it can be changed in a society. In fact, if your counter-argument is "you cannot destroy human nature, but you can suppress it" (which it may or may not be, but in case you didn't pick up on this, I ignored your arguments and started being pre-emptive a while back), then I addressed that much as well: quote:In other words (although I admit, I was waxing way too broadly), as much as "human nature" is a real force to be contended with, so are any "artificial" social constructs. (And of course I'd also argue that human nature is 99% manufacturd, reserving the remaining 1% to copulation and breathing, which I said after that anyway.) quote:Yeah... Okay, again, I really did wax too broadly with that one, but that was an assertion I did make. quote:No, I'm saying that so much as one idea can be wrong, any idea can be wrong. It's a case for relativism. (Essentially, I'm addressing the claim of brainwashing that "communists" so frequently encounter, which I had prefaced in avoid-the-word style simply to avoid giving more fuel to righties. So on that count, yeah, I should have been less duplicitous.) quote:Well, not really-- considering that I would espouse that it's a construct AND a bad one, my suggestion would very much be to get rid of it. quote:My critique was that meritocracy is inherently cruel, self-defeating and that it must be done away with. You seem to be under the impression that I think meritocracy is a good thing that we simply haven't realized, which is about as wrong as you could be about where I stand. The whole bit about human nature I wrote as a proof of how capitalist justifications of meritocracy (despite its being bad-- see Student of Trinity's "Churchill defense") are hollow, and it is POSSIBLE for us to be completely rid of it. quote:Yeah, you're right-on with that one. quote:You seem to think that I pick these out of my head as they come out in some sort of emulation of stream of consciousness. ... Okay, so you're two-for-two. quote:  Three out of three ain't bad. Fine, so I'll proofread my posts in the future and axe out any words that are large/obscure (if at all possible). -------------------- * Posts: 6936 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
Councilor
Member # 6600
|
written Monday, May 29 2006 15:39
Profile
Homepage
Originally by Slartucker: quote:I wasn't even close. Well, I got the "TM-Kel conflict" part. And the thought of Kelandon with a lightsaber was mildly entertaining. quote:How long before you get tired of this line? :P (And how much more wisdom does Dikiyoba need to convince you to resume your wonderful comics?) Posts: 4346 | Registered: Friday, December 23 2005 08:00 |
|
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
|
written Monday, May 29 2006 16:00
Profile
Homepage
Mon dieu. In comparison to this, my dark departmental days of debating deep structure seem pleasant and productive. And Dikiyoba, I can totally picture them having a fight off to the tune of "My schwartz is bigger than yours!" -------------------- Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 3040
|
written Monday, May 29 2006 17:25
Profile
quote:Out of curiosity, Dikiyoba, what was your initial guess? Was it much more than "TM and Kel have a conflict"? That's about as much as I guessed. Speaking of which, what ever happened to the good old days of incessant Bash-bahsing? (or vice-versa...) -------------------- 5.0.1.0.0.0.0.1.0... Posts: 508 | Registered: Thursday, May 29 2003 07:00 |
|
E Equals MC What!!!!
Member # 5491
|
written Monday, May 29 2006 21:33
Profile
Homepage
TM's saving his strength for when Exodus gets released. :P -------------------- SupaNik: Aran, you're not big enough to threaten Ash. Dammit, even JV had to think twice. Posts: 1861 | Registered: Friday, February 11 2005 08:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Monday, May 29 2006 22:19
Profile
Homepage
quote:Given that you've pretty much admitted that you have no idea what I actually think and are just arguing against what you imagine I must think, I suppose it's obvious why I'm not going to bother pursuing this argument, but this particular claim is one that I find wholly wrong-headed. Capitalism doesn't create a pure meritocracy; nothing does. Without a pure meritocracy, the poor can't be blaimed entirely for their status. This seems like common sense. -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 6908
|
written Monday, May 29 2006 23:19
Profile
The more I read this line, the more I get lost in termins. But that' won't be that bad, unless that I'm sure Kel and TM are on the way to lose the main idea, too. The global thoughts on possibility or impossibility of manipulating with human society both in their minds and as a result in their deeds seem to lead nowhere but dictatorship, no matter what ideas were followed at the start. TM said that in society, where a person is struggling in to make his/her life better along with the lives of his/her relatives plus "...and is prompted to do so by the society's ideology and the gov't's methodology...", no competition can be maintained. What is a competition then, were it not the struggle for better life? Back to the topic, I can't say anything to Kel, since he didn't take part in discussion. So, I think Slartucker got it wrong, since there was no arguing. Goes like: LUKE... I LIED... Edit: quote:That's exactly where anarchy originates from. [ Monday, May 29, 2006 23:28: Message edited by: Ford Prefect ] -------------------- 9 masks sing in a choir: Gnome Dwarf Slith Giant Troll Troglo Human Nephil Vahnatai "If the mask under mask to SE of mask to the left of mask and to the right of me is the mask below the mask to the right of mask to the right of mask below me is the same, then who am I?" radix: +2 nicothodes: +1 salmon:+1 Posts: 203 | Registered: Tuesday, March 14 2006 08:00 |
|
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
|
written Tuesday, May 30 2006 02:21
Profile
Homepage
No, no, you've missed the point entirely. -------------------- Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 6908
|
written Tuesday, May 30 2006 03:58
Profile
quote:Ok. LUKE... I'M YOUR MOTHER better? Edit: Or did you mean the point of TM? That's more like true. Actually, as Dikiyoba said, I better wait for explanation from your side. Count that my expression as a failed joke. [ Tuesday, May 30, 2006 04:04: Message edited by: Ford Prefect ] -------------------- 9 masks sing in a choir: Gnome Dwarf Slith Giant Troll Troglo Human Nephil Vahnatai "If the mask under mask to SE of mask to the left of mask and to the right of me is the mask below the mask to the right of mask to the right of mask below me is the same, then who am I?" radix: +2 nicothodes: +1 salmon:+1 Posts: 203 | Registered: Tuesday, March 14 2006 08:00 |
|
BANNED
Member # 4
|
written Tuesday, May 30 2006 06:02
Profile
Homepage
quote:...this is pretty much dead-on. quote:Of course it doesn't make sense. That's why I call it wrong. I was merely displaying the ideological conclusion of what PoD Person had suggested (and what tends to be a very common stock-defense). quote:1. This is not technically a sentence. 2. Dictatorship? Then you're saying that ANY ideology that attempts to change the status quo (ie, how things are right now) is inherently dictatorial by that same logic. In fact, the result of your argument is that anything which we do not think/do right now is inherently stifling, which itself is the most stifling line of argument I have ever heard of. (In fact, your argument itself RELIES on human nature to say that it is inevitable [ie, "power corrupts absolutely"]-- otherwise, you're essentially calling me a jackass. Thanks.) quote:It can be an utterly fruitless struggle that parodies itself. For instance, if I shoot you in both feet and punch you in the nose, then ask you to race against Olympic athletes, it's not particularly competitive, now is it? (Of course, this concern could have easily flowed from shifting idiom.) EDIT:  LUKE... I DID YOUR MOM. [ Tuesday, May 30, 2006 06:04: Message edited by: Keto-san ] -------------------- * Posts: 6936 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
|
written Tuesday, May 30 2006 06:51
Profile
Homepage
You know, for once, that particular "I did your mom" actually wasn't an insult. It was just a statement of fact. Lynx is Serge's father. (Um, spoiler. :P ) -------------------- Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 6908
|
written Tuesday, May 30 2006 07:19
Profile
Nikita, what was that insult for? TM, I was talking not about changin the status quo. Seemes like you've missed the word in my post. It was an analysys from the point of view not the nation but its leaders. So 1. It is more of a statement. 2. No. Whatever do you mean sayin "stifling line of argument", by the way? It is "stifling" that confuses me. 2.5 Power really corrupts, but only the minds of those, who posess. 2.99 I haven't got the last statement: otherwise of what? But definitely, I'm not calling you a one. 3. I wanted to say, isn't struggle for better life is in other way called a competition? But your example is really a cruel image of something to be called a competition? -------------------- 9 masks sing in a choir: Gnome Dwarf Slith Giant Troll Troglo Human Nephil Vahnatai "If the mask under mask to SE of mask to the left of mask and to the right of me is the mask below the mask to the right of mask to the right of mask below me is the same, then who am I?" radix: +2 nicothodes: +1 salmon:+1 Posts: 203 | Registered: Tuesday, March 14 2006 08:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Tuesday, May 30 2006 07:44
Profile
Homepage
quote:Why the hell were you responding to PoD person when you were quoting me? -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Councilor
Member # 6600
|
written Tuesday, May 30 2006 07:44
Profile
Homepage
Originally by Ford Prefect: quote:Because Nikita is really Ed, and Ed has never liked TM and is upset that he's been banned from the boards. Dikiyoba. Posts: 4346 | Registered: Friday, December 23 2005 08:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 6403
|
written Tuesday, May 30 2006 08:24
Profile
quote:There's something incorrect with that? -------------------- ??? ?????? ???? ????? Posts: 883 | Registered: Wednesday, October 19 2005 07:00 |
|
BANNED
Member # 7175
|
written Tuesday, May 30 2006 09:35
Profile
quote:Diki is right, ok. I dont wanna hide who i am, and yeah I am upset about being banned. No one ever gave me the chance to come back, and then i forced my way back :( All i want is to be someone who can be part of the Spidweb community and post freely again. Posts: 32 | Registered: Monday, May 29 2006 07:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 6403
|
written Tuesday, May 30 2006 09:43
Profile
Do you suffer from Asperger's Syndrome? -------------------- ??? ?????? ???? ????? Posts: 883 | Registered: Wednesday, October 19 2005 07:00 |