A Time for Change

[busyrobot]

If Saddam Hussien can call himself a president who wins a popular vote in a Republic (even still from his trial no less), then I think Zormite can call itself whatever it wants.

All of you grumblers, please buy a plane ticket and go whine at that guy at his trial. That could actually be amusing.

[GoZelda]

Originally Posted by busyrobot

If Saddam Hussien can call himself a president who wins a popular vote in a Republic (even still from his trial no less), then I think Zormite can call itself whatever it wants.

Look what happened to him =) Besides, it isn't relevant for you because you said earlier that Graal can't be compared to real life

[busyrobot]

Originally Posted by GoZelda

Look what happened to him =) Besides, it isn't relevant for you because you said earlier that Graal can't be compared to real life

I stand by that, however as many others have made irl comparisions, I offered a relevant one that counters their points. As far as what happened to Saddam, I assure you if he called his regime by another other name, it would have had no effect on what happened to him - and has nothing to do with the topic.

My point is that the terminology is very subjective irl, and also quite flexible. The nit picky long winded complaints about zormite are as out of place as they are baseless. Its as annoying as spending a year and a half listening to people complaining about the color of the dustari wand or something.

Give it up already. Its a game. No one would even care IF you all had a point, the fact that you don't only adds to the irrelevance.

[Lance]

Originally Posted by busyrobot

If Saddam Hussien can call himself a president who wins a popular vote in a Republic (even still from his trial no less), then I think Zormite can call itself whatever it wants.

I'm sorry, but I'm debating the accuracy of the name 'Zormite Republic'. I'm not sure what you hoped to accomplish by providing me with an example of another inaccurate name.

Originally Posted by falco10291029

We at the US vote for our leaders do we not? That would make us a republic, yet we call ourselves a democracy.

We're a republic. Specifically, we are a representative democracy. This is a type of democracy, but it is not pure democracy. People who call it a pure democracy do not really understand how our government works and sound quite foolish.

So why can't Zormite call themselves a republic when they are more like a monarchy?

Well, they most certainly can, if they want to sound as foolish as the folks I mentioned earlier.

You should try talking to the leaders of the country if you wish to continue to support your ideas.

I somehow don't think that a letter from the president would convince you folks if reason and logic can't.

Check and Mate.

If you say so.

[busyrobot]

Originally Posted by Lance

I'm sorry, but I'm debating the accuracy of the name 'Zormite Republic'. I'm not sure what you hoped to accomplish by providing me with an example of another inaccurate name.

Come on lance, horses come from eggs around here, lighten up.

When you say 'another inaccurate name' you are referring to a name (the Republic of Iraq) that is on all the maps, recorded in the Library of Congress, cited in countless debates and speeches in the US Senate and Congress, and has been acknowledged by the UN, the EU, and just about every government body around the world. You have a lot of people to reach, they need you Lance.

If you want to debate the 'accuracy' of the name please give it a rest - no one cares enough for a deep philosophical exchange.

The only question on the table for debate is 'does zormite have the right to call itself a republic without being hounded by strangely obsessed people that want to debate every political government structure from the Roman era onward as it relates to the historical and idealogical context of the term republic and its use by zormite?'


Zormite is a Republic, even though they don't vote.

Dustari is a Monarchy, even though at least half of all the royal family members throughout its history have been adopted while still being related to twelve different families.

CP are pirates even though they have a castle and even have a special medival shield event item in their honor.

KJ is an ancient japanese society even though they use warhammers and mithril armor etc.

Forest is an elven kingdom even though....I don't even know what's happening with Forest.

Horses and monkeys come from eggs. People die of farts. You play a flute to make plants grow. Barbarians master wizardry in 30 seconds with 1.4k worth of scrolls.

Zormite has some decent distinction and has developed its own style, and if you think it is not perfect enough for your taste - look around and promptly get over it. Personally I am not convinced that a republic can only be called such one if voting is involved....but I actually don't care and it does not matter. All that matters is, is that Zormite is a decent enough Republic that if they want to be one, then so be it. They may, and may do so in peace without this being rehashed constantly.

This topic is dead, the only reason I am even posting is to try to convey, beyond a shadow of a doubt, to a handful of oddly obsessed people, that this old, retired, dead, trivial debate has been exhausted to the point of such lifelessness that it really doesn't ever need to be raised again.

Here lies 'The Republic Debate', raised from the dead for the umpteenth time but finally buried one last time here, fini, done, over.

[darkemporor]

That topic is dead... and apparently so's this one.

*thread closed* or not. Why are my moderator rights removed?

Wren

[falco10291029]

Republic - one person represents a group of people
Democracy - major issues are voted upon

Ok, want me to help fend off these people saying how we cant be called a republic? This quote will now be used to prove my point. A republic is a system where you vote for who you want to lead you. A democracy is one where everyone votes on the major issues. We at the US vote for our leaders do we not? That would make us a republic, yet we call ourselves a democracy. So why can't Zormite call themselves a republic when they are more like a monarchy? You should try talking to the leaders of the country if you wish to continue to support your ideas. Check and Mate.

[GoZelda]

Originally Posted by falco10291029

Ok, want me to help fend off these people saying how we cant be called a republic? This quote will now be used to prove my point. A republic is a system where you vote for who you want to lead you. A democracy is one where everyone votes on the major issues. We at the US vote for our leaders do we not? That would make us a republic, yet we call ourselves a democracy. So why can't Zormite call themselves a republic when they are more like a monarchy? You should try talking to the leaders of the country if you wish to continue to support your ideas. Check and Mate.

Wrong.

Democracy:
Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
Majority rule.

[falco10291029]

Pfft thats a laugh most times we are called a democracy, anything where you vote on a leader is eithet representative democracy or a republic, but not just democracy. It's no different then Zormite calling ourselves a republic. And I didnt say contact them to convince us, i said ud have to take the same argument to them concerning calling us just democracy!

[GoZelda]

Originally Posted by falco10291029

Pfft thats a laugh most times we are called a democracy, anything where you vote on a leader is eithet representative democracy or a republic, but not just democracy. It's no different then Zormite calling ourselves a republic. And I didnt say contact them to convince us, i said ud have to take the same argument to them concerning calling us just democracy!

Wow dude you triple posted.

[falco10291029]

Originally Posted by busyrobot

Come on lance, horses come from eggs around here, lighten up.

When you say 'another inaccurate name' you are referring to a name (the Republic of Iraq) that is on all the maps, recorded in the Library of Congress, cited in countless debates and speeches in the US Senate and Congress, and has been acknowledged by the UN, the EU, and just about every government body around the world. You have a lot of people to reach, they need you Lance.

If you want to debate the 'accuracy' of the name please give it a rest - no one cares enough for a deep philosophical exchange.

THANK YOU!

Also i just came up with a new idea that SHOULD shut most people up.


"Zormite Republic" can be just a name, i could call myself King Falco and it doesnt mean i rule over anyone


EDIT: Oops sop sorry wren i think i must have tried posting after u but i was typing and didnt refresh and i bet that reopened the thread if u closed....oops

[falco10291029]

dang thems good arguing skills

[Nappa]

Their is too much to reply too, so little time. Plus I'm too lazy. Zen I'm pretty sure hereditary changes in government aren't voted upon - thus these people were never elected by anyone but the previous leader which isn't the populous.

[LordZen]

Every member of the Supreme Court is appointed for life by a sitting President.

It is not nessisary for every person in office to be voted to that position. Also you are ignoring a large part of my argument, or didnt understand it fully.

You say that hereditary changes in government are not voted apon, this is true. But whenever a Vice President replaces a President between elections, that is not voted on, either. Neither would the 3rd in the line of seccession for President be voted on, and that individual wasnt even on the presidential ballot to begin with. As I have previously stated, a line of seccession is established as a backup in order to keep an important, normally elected office, occupied incase the current holder of that office for whatever reason can no longer occupy it during their term.

Glad you were civil about that, though. Thanks.

[protagonist]

Grrrrr. So much ill logic.

Lance, Republic is not a title. There is no universal title system for any set of countries or governments. Republic is part of the name, just like Crescent is/was part of Crescent Pirates. Does that mean people think "OMFG THEY CALL THEM CRESCENT PIRATES! THEY MUST BE SHAPED IN A CRESCENT MANNER OR WE ARE BEING MISLED!"? I hope not.

The United States of America. I don't see any reference to government structure. Does that mean that the government doesn't exist? Same with Canada or England or any other number of countries; including the government structure is not necessary. Conversely, including references to government structures does not make that reference true. It is the burden of other people to realize the government structure, not the burden of the government to make its structure known to everyone. Especially to people not in the kingdom.

[Splke]

-blinks-...

[Crono]

Zormite sucks, why even bother typing up so much argument text? It should be a bunch of fish running around with a dictator

[Splke]

Zormites okay.. their leaders suck.

[Crono]

Originally Posted by Splke

Zormites okay.. their leaders suck.

Zormite should have like, half-zormite fish half human breeds, not humans. It's boring seeing 3 human kingdoms which in my opinion are all the same, then KJ who just stand out because of their clothing / building styles.

[Splke]

Originally Posted by Gerami

Zormite should have like, half-zormite fish half human breeds, not humans. It's boring seeing 3 human kingdoms which in my opinion are all the same, then KJ who just stand out because of their scammers / ****s.

Zormite is cool, they've got good background, but their leaders suck. Dustari is good, but they haven't had a good leader for awhile.. (no offense Lance).

CP hasn't been good since Ghost, and it NEVER will be.

[protagonist]

I have exclusive pictures of a real life Zormite guy:

[Splke]

Originally Posted by protagonist

I have exclusive pictures of a real life Zormite guy:

Ahaha.. yeah, he looks like a Zormite should.. not the fish1.png face.

[Crono]

lawl @ VT, i thought posting pictures like that was illegal?

[GoZelda]

Originally Posted by Gerami

lawl @ VT, i thought posting pictures like that was illegal?

I wonder what more restrictions "they" can think of.

[CheeToS2]

News flash: People of Zormite long ago debating this topic...you made your feelings known in the past (as you stated yourelf in your opening comments) and decided long ago the name as appropriate.

I've been a Zormite for years. I don't like the name "Zormite Republic." The last time I looked, it was run more like a dictatorship. Plain "Zormite" sounds better and makes more sense. I haven't rejoined after the leadership/name change because it has become a cesspool.

[falco10291029]

Originally Posted by Lance the HOT AIR god ;)

But it doesn't point out that I'm "flat out wrong." It points out that you can cite examples of other countries whose names may or may not be appropriate. That is wholly irrelevant to the current discussion.

I am sorry, but your im smart attidtude is basically opposite of the truth for this matter. As has been said many times, you just ignore what you cant fight off or say it doesnt matter, i, as well as most other people believe: THAT IS WRONG!!! You have yet to successfully backup your side of the argument, and i doubt you can, since you are ont eh losing side, with little evidence avaialable to back up your position. Nothing you say, even if it makes sense, proves your point in the least biot, it just shows your stubbornness! Any example of a similar situation is relevant, no matter what the "Wind God" proclaims! people say you are basically using a you suck argument, but i disagree, a you suck argument would be better backed up .

[Lance]

Originally Posted by falco10291029

I am sorry, but your im smart attidtude is basically opposite of the truth for this matter.

How is an attitude false...?

As has been said many times, you just ignore what you cant fight off or say it doesnt matter, i, as well as most other people believe: THAT IS WRONG!!!

Except that you're ignoring my points and responding with this incoherent blathering. Hypocrisy? I think so!

You have yet to successfully backup your side of the argument, and i doubt you can, since you are ont eh losing side, with little evidence avaialable to back up your position.

I have already, doofus. My argument is that the name is inaccurate. I provided supporting evidence and an explanation of why it is such. Other folks are introducing other irrelevant information and are misunderstanding my point. Some are confusing me with other people. I'm a patient guy, so it doesn't terribly bother me. Pointing out where people are making this mistake is growing annoying, though.

Nothing you say, even if it makes sense, proves your point in the least biot, it just shows your stubbornness!

This is a pretty awesome statement right here. Care to explain?

Any example of a similar situation is relevant, no matter what the "Wind God" proclaims!

Then can you please tell me just how is it relevant? That's all I'm asking. If you're so right, it should be relatively easy to explain. Otherwise, you're just slinging baseless statements.

people say you are basically using a you suck argument, but i disagree, a you suck argument would be better backed up .

You kinda need to work on that 'making sense' part.

[busyrobot]

Lance, I am not going to quote the whole thing point by point or these back and forths will get waaaaay too long.


1) My primary point, is that if the real world accepts that the People's Republic of China is a Republic, then it is accurate, by default. Your claim that 'other people using the name wrong are irrelevant' would be fine, if it wasn't for the fact that the dispute I have with you is whether the name is actually used wrong when used in reference to the People's Republic of China.

1 a) You cite it is used wrong by the Chinese government, the UN, every government body within the United States, and every other goverment throughout the world, as best as I can tell, because it is counter to your views. If you feel I am 'putting words in your mouth' then try to justify why all these nations and peoples are wrong, so we can use your words instead.


1 b) I cite that it is used correctly, as language is a human invention, and humans are using it to define the People's Republic of China as a Republic, then it is so. Dictionaries have long updated their definitions (such as 'computer' ) based on the contemporary use, and China has been a Republic for a long time now.

I want you to explain why you feel the world governments are wrong and you are right. All I have seen is you saying "Except that I am being objective here, dude. " and that doesn't cut it.


Point 2) In a game like this, even if you were correct on all your points, which I content you are not, it does not matter if Zormite adheres to the strict real world definitions of 'Republic' - which I still contend it does - because in a game (especially a game with flaming farts and horses in eggs and pirates with castles) there is no expectation of strict representational accuracy. You are allowed to play with things and you do not have to build a real world government to play a government in the game.

2 a) You act as if, if you were proven correct, that Zormite would somehow be embarrassed or wrong to use the name 'Zormite Republic'.

2 b) being as this debate was had before, and that the leaders of zormite considered everyone's arguments then, and chose to keep the name, that this would be considered a retired topic. This historical precidence also establishes that the name was accepted and has been quite fine for over a year, raising no concerns from Stefan or current members of Zormite.




As a side note, to 'Pull a Matlock' is a reference to the old TV show 'Matlock' in which a trial lawyer would formulaicly [sic] have a weak case until the last 5 minutes of the TV show at which point would produce some stunning evidence or discovery in favor of his client.


Lance, please think about these points and refute them, summerize whatever you feel your strongest points for your case in your favor is, and perhaps there will be a modicum of progress. Please do allow for the possibility that you may be wrong.

[Lance]

Originally Posted by busyrobot

Lance, I am not going to quote the whole thing point by point or these back and forths will get waaaaay too long.


1) My primary point, is that if the real world accepts that the People's Republic of China is a Republic, then it is accurate, by default.

My primary point: No. It means that it's accepted, not that it's accurate.

Your claim that 'other people using the name wrong are irrelevant' would be fine, if it wasn't for the fact that the dispute I have with you is whether the name is actually used wrong when used in reference to the People's Republic of China.

Look, I'm just trying to say whether or not China's name is inaccurate has no bearing on whether or not Zormite Republic's is inaccurate.

1 a) You cite it is used wrong by the Chinese government, the UN, every government body within the United States, and every other goverment throughout the world, as best as I can tell, because it is counter to your views. If you feel I am 'putting words in your mouth' then try to justify why all these nations and peoples are wrong, so we can use your words instead.


1 b) I cite that it is used correctly, as language is a human invention, and humans are using it to define the People's Republic of China as a Republic, then it is so. Dictionaries have long updated their definitions (such as 'computer' ) based on the contemporary use, and China has been a Republic for a long time now.

I want you to explain why you feel the world governments are wrong and you are right. All I have seen is you saying "Except that I am being objective here, dude. " and that doesn't cut it.

Except I did not claim that these world governments are wrong...? I stated only that it doesn't matter if they are or not. I am growing frustrated that you are trying to lead this debate away from whether or not the name of Zormite Republic is accurate or not.

Point 2) In a game like this, even if you were correct on all your points, which I content you are not, it does not matter if Zormite adheres to the strict real world definitions of 'Republic' - which I still contend it does - because in a game (especially a game with flaming farts and horses in eggs and pirates with castles) there is no expectation of strict representational accuracy. You are allowed to play with things and you do not have to build a real world government to play a government in the game.

Hey, I'm just talking about the inaccuracy. It's on them what they do about it, if you folks manage to become convinced that I'm right.

Aside from that, I'll state the obvious: "Doesn't matter" does not equal "Shouldn't talk about".

2 a) You act as if, if you were proven correct, that Zormite would somehow be embarrassed or wrong to use the name 'Zormite Republic'.

Hey, how they feel is up to them, man. I offered a suggestion of a possibility, at best.

2 b) being as this debate was had before, and that the leaders of zormite considered everyone's arguments then, and chose to keep the name, that this would be considered a retired topic. This historical precidence also establishes that the name was accepted and has been quite fine for over a year, raising no concerns from Stefan or current members of Zormite.

Well, apparently it is not retired, as people still wish to debate them.

As for Stefan - do you expect him to know both the name and how the kingdom is run in order to comment on it?

As a side note, to 'Pull a Matlock' is a reference to the old TV show 'Matlock' in which a trial lawyer would formulaicly [sic] have a weak case until the last 5 minutes of the TV show at which point would produce some stunning evidence or discovery in favor of his client.

Ah, okay.

Lance, please think about these points and refute them, summerize whatever you feel your strongest points for your case in your favor is, and perhaps there will be a modicum of progress. Please do allow for the possibility that you may be wrong.

I always allow for that possibility, but when people present irrelevant stuff it just doesn't really help prove me wrong. In fact, I would like to be wrong, as it would be much nicer if the Zormite kingdom's name was accurate and I was the one mistaken. However, at this point in time I have no reason to believe that I am mistaken.

[busyrobot]

Originally Posted by Lance

My primary point: No. It means that it's accepted, not that it's accurate.

I disagree, I think that maybe the sum total of the entire world and its massive government bodies may actually be using the term correctly, and that perhaps you are incorrect.

Secondarily, the fact that even if by chance you are right and they are wrong - that if the world can accept 'The People's Republic of China' as a name (accurate or not) then there is absolutely no reason to have a debate as to whether Zormite should have Republic in its name.

If it is acceptable for China to, the world over, use the term Republic, then I think maybe Zormite can get away with it too in this video game.

I still say that your assertion that 'the world is using inaccurately' and that you possess the truth could be a little off......but I can't understand why even if you managed to turn out correct (the world will be so embarassed) then accepted use irl should be accepted use in game - no higher standards for RPGs than there are for The Real World, please.

Can you at least acknowledge that?

[Monkeyboy_McGee]

Originally Posted by Lance the Wind God

But. These parties don't exist.

It's not his job to make sure those parties do exist, and it isn't his job to make sure they don't, either. The reason they do not exist (even though such things do/have exist/ed, whether you personally know about them or not, lance) is purely because nobody has bothered to form one. The reason Zen added that into the constitution was probably to cover the possibility that such parties did arise, and so that there -was- a chance that power could change hands - that's why i'd add it in, anyway, don't know about Zen.

I never claimed to be the majority. I merely claimed to be correct.

I never claimed that you claimed to be the majority, but i did claim that numbers do count, thus rendering whether you were correct or not...OMGZ0RS IRRELEVANT :O!

No, listen, they don't. The amount of people that believe a statement to be true does not affect the truth of the statement.

Hey, it's not like there was a minority who had the right idea about the shape of the world, or about astronomy. Oh wai...

The people you refer to there lance, proved that they were right; you have failed to do so.

Some of you are bothered enough to hotly debate this with me, when I am making one simple point.

Time and time and time again. And then get proved wrong, time and time and time again. By doing that, you're bothering them enough to hotly debate it with you until you realise this.

Okay? Your loss, buddy.

Yeah. Sure it is.

A whole lot of crap about relevance, with this somewhere in the middle: Kindly establish the relevance...?

The relevance has clearly been shown, and you are the only one here failing to establish the relevance within your own head. Sorry, but that's your fault, not ours.

Instead of debating about my attitude, why not debate the points?

Well, it seems that the only reason this debate is still going is so that you can retain your image of "Lance the Wind God - The diety who is never ever ever ever ever ever wrong and never ever ever ever backs down until he's changed the minds of everyone who disagrees with him, or until he suddenly deems the thread lock-worthy Oneoneoneone."
Of course, if you'd like to show me otherwise by dropping the argument, leaving zormite alone, and letting us run our kingdom as we wish, and call it what we want, regardless of whether you think it is correct, then that would be great. Somehow i doubt you will though.

Oh btw, Kurenai Joukai is clearly not crimson, and it clearly does not resemble a heaven, so are you going to go and throw peanuts at them too now?

Edit: Omy, i just invented a new game. It's called "Count the number of times lance responds to something by either talking about irrelevancy, or putting simple sentences (one/two word answers come under this) which don't actually tackle the point raised."
Whoever gets to 30 first wins a free...uh...metre^3 of air?

[Lance]

Originally Posted by Monkeyboy_McGee

It's not his job to make sure those parties do exist, and it isn't his job to make sure they don't, either. The reason they do not exist (even though such things do/have exist/ed, whether you personally know about them or not, lance) is purely because nobody has bothered to form one. The reason Zen added that into the constitution was probably to cover the possibility that such parties did arise, and so that there -was- a chance that power could change hands - that's why i'd add it in, anyway, don't know about Zen.

Except that he's using the existence of these parties to justify other statements, and they do not exist. Herein lies a problem.

I never claimed that you claimed to be the majority, but i did claim that numbers do count, thus rendering whether you were correct or not...OMGZ0RS IRRELEVANT :O!

And I never claimed that you did claim that. I was pointing out that I never said I was representing the majority, so your original statement of whether I represent the majority or not is surprisingly the irrelevant thing!

The people you refer to there lance, proved that they were right; you have failed to do so.

Where is this proof? I've yet to see someone able to point to it, if it even exists. I don't think it does. However, if someone's able to prove otherwise, I'm all ears.

Time and time and time again. And then get proved wrong, time and time and time again. By doing that, you're bothering them enough to hotly debate it with you until you realise this.

It's their choice, man. I don't control other people.

The relevance has clearly been shown, and you are the only one here failing to establish the relevance within your own head. Sorry, but that's your fault, not ours.

I've said this about five times now, but please show me this relevance.

Well, it seems that the only reason this debate is still going is so that you can retain your image of "Lance the Wind God - The diety who is never ever ever ever ever ever wrong and never ever ever ever backs down until he's changed the minds of everyone who disagrees with him, or until he suddenly deems the thread lock-worthy Oneoneoneone."

1) I am right most of the time, not always.
2) Wren is the one who was going to close this thread when it did not warrant closing, not me.

Of course, if you'd like to show me otherwise by dropping the argument, leaving zormite alone, and letting us run our kingdom as we wish, and call it what we want, regardless of whether you think it is correct, then that would be great. Somehow i doubt you will though.

I am letting you run your kingdom as you wish and calling it what you want. I'm just pointing out that it's inaccurate to do so.

Oh btw, Kurenai Joukai is clearly not crimson, and it clearly does not resemble a heaven, so are you going to go and throw peanuts at them too now?

First, I do not really like that name anyway. Secondly, their color is crimson, and they consider themselves a haven of sorts. They are not claiming to have some sort of governmental structure that they do not have. Subjectively, it may be accurate. However, again, that's not the issue. Sigh.

[falco10291029]

Ah crrap i just had a huge argument that it deleted for some reason, something about an invalid thread.....i geuss i have no choice but to remake it :'(

Originally Posted by Lance the hot air god

How is an attitude false...?

You were using an im smart attitude, im am saying that is wrong which implies you are dumb. Simple XD.

Originally Posted by Lance the hot air god

Except that you're ignoring my points and responding with this incoherent blathering. Hypocrisy? I think so!

I don't. Your points are incomplete and you'd be better off saying "your wrong because im always right!" Basically you just say what a republic is, well Zormite has elected a leader at least once, so it is therefore a republic. Your points are disproved and thereby what i say is not blathering as you call it, but pointing out that you cannot sucessfully defend a point.

Originally Posted by Lance the hot air god

I have already, doofus. My argument is that the name is inaccurate. I provided supporting evidence and an explanation of why it is such. Other folks are introducing other irrelevant information and are misunderstanding my point. Some are confusing me with other people. I'm a patient guy, so it doesn't terribly bother me. Pointing out where people are making this mistake is growing annoying, though.

Ah, upgrading yourself to a you suck argument, ah well. As I just explained, the name is NOT inaccurate. None of the information is irrelevant, you just dont like it because it isnt the same exact thing.

Originally Posted by Lance the hot air god

This is a pretty awesome statement right here. Care to explain?

of course, for any other people who cant comprehend simple things, you may also wanna read this:
Any points you make cannot POSSIBLY have sufficient evidence, unless you find a law that says "Lance is right and you must listen to him", whichj no one intheir right mind would make. Most things you say though are just repeats of what you just sed, all your threads are basically:
Name is wrong, your points are wrong, thats irrelevant.
I consider that to not make sense.

Originally Posted by Lance the hot air god

Then can you please tell me just how is it relevant? That's all I'm asking. If you're so right, it should be relatively easy to explain. Otherwise, you're just slinging baseless statements.

*Laughs and wonders how so much stupidityu ended up in one place*
Anyway, it is showing similar events that have been accepted by the masses, and showing ones that are even more against their names, and that thoise should be argued about before Zormite Republic is. Also the global warming thing, it is basically showing you, the 2% just saying is not over and over, also relevant. You cannot just throw things away and call them irrelevant because they show examples, actually that is the opposite of what any good lawyer/judge/anyone with an iq over room temp, would do.

Originally Posted by Lance the hot air god

You kinda need to work on that 'making sense' part.

As for me not making sense, no, you just cannot comprehend simple things for some odd reason i have yet to find! I am saying someone saying you suck has a better argument than you do, duh!

[Lance]

Originally Posted by falco10291029

ou were using an im smart attitude, im am saying that is wrong which implies you are dumb. Simple XD.

No, you said that my attitude "was the opposite of the truth". An attitude does not possess a truth value.

And, I am smart. Would you say otherwise?

I don't. Your points are incomplete and you'd be better off saying "your wrong because im always right!"

Can you point me in that direction? Else you're just spewing more baseless allegations.

Basically you just say what a republic is, well Zormite has elected a leader at least once, so it is therefore a republic.

Let's examine this statement.

Your statement rests on the premise that a government is a republic if a leader is elected at any point in time, regardless of what happens after that.

Do you see the problem here?

Your points are disproved and thereby what i say is not blathering as you call it, but pointing out that you cannot sucessfully defend a point.

That's nice, but you were blathering incoherently. You still haven't shown where my points were disproved, either. More of these baseless statements - you're good at that.

Ah, upgrading yourself to a you suck argument, ah well.

Not an argument, but a label. My point rests not on that label.

As I just explained, the name is NOT inaccurate.

And as I just explained, your reasoning is so horribly flawed that I will not even begin to comment on it.

None of the information is irrelevant, you just dont like it because it isnt the same exact thing.

Either demonstrate the relevance or stop making these unqualified cliams.

of course, for any other people who cant comprehend simple things, you may also wanna read this:
Any points you make cannot POSSIBLY have sufficient evidence, unless you find a law that says "Lance is right and you must listen to him", whichj no one intheir right mind would make.

So I cannot possibly be right, no matter what I do? Do you see the flaws in this reasoning?

Most things you say though are just repeats of what you just sed,

I really can't help it if some people are too slow to get it the first time.

all your threads are basically:
Name is wrong, your points are wrong, thats irrelevant.
I consider that to not make sense.

Uh, I've justified everything I've said that has been questioned. I cannot, however, say the same for you.

*Laughs and wonders how so much stupidityu ended up in one place*

I wonder, too.

Anyway, it is showing similar events that have been accepted by the masses, and showing ones that are even more against their names, and that thoise should be argued about before Zormite Republic is.

So because other people accepted a possibly inaccurate name, so too should I accept this one? I ask you again, do you see the flaws in this reasoning?

Also the global warming thing, it is basically showing you, the 2% just saying is not over and over,

What?

also relevant.

How?

You cannot just throw things away and call them irrelevant because they show examples, actually that is the opposite of what any good lawyer/judge/anyone with an iq over room temp, would do.

Man, I can call them irrelevant because they are. They're examples of other possibly inaccurate things or examples of other debates. Neither of these things have much of a bearing on the current debate, unless there's some thin connection that someone can actually get around to demonstrating.

As for me not making sense, no, you just cannot comprehend simple things for some odd reason i have yet to find!

No, you simply cannot phrase things in an eloquent manner. Your typing skills could use some work too, but this is just another 'YOU SUcK' argument too, right?

I am saying someone saying you suck has a better argument than you do, duh!

Sigh.

[falco10291029]

As was done, im not gonna quopte, ill do with numbers, yay:

1) *sigh* i am saying that the content of how you are acting is wrong. An attitude can be wrong. If you are angry because you won some money, that would be considered wrong, just as i consider you thinking that you are smart wrong.

2)Read your posts. Anyone else on this side of the argument will agree with me, you cannot prove a point correctly.

3)No I do not see the problem. If we had a president elected and then all of a sudden congress decided he'd stay for life, it would still be a democracy/republic.

4)Your posts are disproved any thread where someone quotes your points. Just about everyone has proven a bunch of your points wrong.

5)How is that a label?

6)My reasoning is far from flawed. If anyone's is, it is yours, you do not have sufficient evidence for your bclaims, so please acting like I'M the idiot, we all know it is the other way around(expression, dont just get someone to quote they think you're smart....).

7)I demonstrated the relevance quite well, you just cant get it into your head, as was said earlier, not my fault.

8)No I dont, there is no evidence out there to correctly support you. This is quite right, unless you can prove potherwise, you, the accuser, has the burden of proof, not me.

9)Erm actually everyone gets the 1 non backed up point you have, you just repeat it because you have nothing else.

10) Far from it, it just opens more questions, like "How did he come up with such a non-backed argument?"

11)Wow even you wonder about your stupidity, funny. Try asking your parents.


12)Nope, it shows what should be accepted. Say there is a new kid in school. He acts a certain way and is accepted. Another new kid comes EXACTLY like the first one, and is turned down, making the others hypocrites and such. My point as you can see here is well backed with a good example. I cannot say the same for anything you have posted thus far.

13) you dont get it, not surprising. I am saying you are repeating the same nonbacked up argument over, and i keep having to say this to you! I wonder when you will finally get it....


14)I gave a fair explanation to it, I cannot explain firther, i have trouble explaining these things .........hmm the only other things i'd have trouble explaining this too is a rock.....


15)I demonstrated it. when you learn how to use scroll up you can look at that part of the post.

16)I phrase them just fine, I am sure most others get what i am saying. Also my typing, to quote "The Great God of Hot Air", is irrelevant. And it really is, unlike most other points you call irrelevant.

17) Couldnt come up with a witty comeback? I suppose youd first need wit to do this.

[Lance]

Originally Posted by falco10291029

As was done, im not gonna quopte, ill do with numbers, yay:

1) *sigh* i am saying that the content of how you are acting is wrong. An attitude can be wrong. If you are angry because you won some money, that would be considered wrong, just as i consider you thinking that you are smart wrong.

What's wrong with my attitude? I repeat: I am smart. So what?

2)Read your posts. Anyone else on this side of the argument will agree with me, you cannot prove a point correctly.

Except that you fail to provide me with even a bit of supporting evidence here.

3)No I do not see the problem. If we had a president elected and then all of a sudden congress decided he'd stay for life, it would still be a democracy/republic.

That logic also justifies this situation:

-Country A forms a republican government.
-Country A becomes a totalitarian government.
-Country A can safely call itself a Republic, because it was a republic at one point in time.

I will ask again, do you see the problem here?

4)Your posts are disproved any thread where someone quotes your points. Just about everyone has proven a bunch of your points wrong.

Yet you fail to identify even one. Isn't that sad?

5)How is that a label?

Look it up.

6)My reasoning is far from flawed. If anyone's is, it is yours, you do not have sufficient evidence for your bclaims, so please acting like I'M the idiot, we all know it is the other way around(expression, dont just get someone to quote they think you're smart....).

Examine my hypothetical situation for justification of my statement.

7)I demonstrated the relevance quite well, you just cant get it into your head, as was said earlier, not my fault.

Saying something is relevant isn't proving that it is, man.

8)No I dont, there is no evidence out there to correctly support you. This is quite right, unless you can prove potherwise, you, the accuser, has the burden of proof, not me.

No, pay attention. I said it was inaccurate, and I provided my proof in the form of supporting evidence. You said I was incorrect, but failed to provide proof of that.

9)Erm actually everyone gets the 1 non backed up point you have, you just repeat it because you have nothing else.

What?

10) Far from it, it just opens more questions, like "How did he come up with such a non-backed argument?"

Uh, you still haven't justified any of your allegations, man.

11)Wow even you wonder about your stupidity, funny. Try asking your parents.

Don't be childish.

12)Nope, it shows what should be accepted. Say there is a new kid in school. He acts a certain way and is accepted. Another new kid comes EXACTLY like the first one, and is turned down, making the others hypocrites and such. My point as you can see here is well backed with a good example. I cannot say the same for anything you have posted thus far.

In the first half of the second millenium, it was accepted that the earth was flat. So, then, would it be accurate to say that the earth was flat? What, it wouldn't? Oh, my goodness!

13) you dont get it, not surprising. I am saying you are repeating the same nonbacked up argument over, and i keep having to say this to you! I wonder when you will finally get it....

I will never 'get' what you are trying to say so long as it is incoherent and especially while it is incorrect. Kindly justify your statements, or back off.

14)I gave a fair explanation to it, I cannot explain firther, i have trouble explaining these things .........hmm the only other things i'd have trouble explaining this too is a rock.....

You provided no justification to your statements. Your arguments consist of "It's obvious'. Doesn't work!

15)I demonstrated it. when you learn how to use scroll up you can look at that part of the post.

See above!

16)I phrase them just fine, I am sure most others get what i am saying. Also my typing, to quote "The Great God of Hot Air", is irrelevant. And it really is, unlike most other points you call irrelevant.

Perhaps irrelevant, but oh so fun to point out! I'll direct you to every phrase I have labelled incoherent!

17) Couldnt come up with a witty comeback? I suppose youd first need wit to do this.

Another childish insult, congratulations! However, when one insults another's wit, it is generally required that they possess the capability to recognize wit when they see it!

[protagonist]

Originally Posted by Lance

What's wrong with my attitude? I repeat: I am smart. So what?

How can someone who is self-allegedly so smart be defying various other moderators over something so ****ing stupid?

Originally Posted by Lance

Except that you fail to provide me with even a bit of supporting evidence here.

Neither do you. All you have managed to do is start a bashfest, which has been closed several times by other moderators. Perhaps you should take a step back and look?

Originally Posted by Lance

That logic also justifies this situation:

-Country A forms a republican government.
-Country A becomes a totalitarian government.
-Country A can safely call itself a Republic, because it was a republic at one point in time.

I will ask again, do you see the problem here?

I see a problem. You are still foolishly arguing the name of a country. There is a county in California called Orange county. Am I to assume that it is orange?

[QUOTE=Lance]
Yet you fail to identify even one. Isn't that sad?

Originally Posted by Lance

Another childish insult, congratulations! However, when one insults another's wit, it is generally required that they possess the capability to recognize wit when they see it!

You seem to be lacking in that[the wit] department in this thread. You keep using the same tired argument which is still no more valid than opinion. You do not have a universal leg to stand on, it's simply a matter of your preference over theirs. I can see no reason for this other than you are bored and feel like stirring the pot.

[Nappa]

Originally Posted by protagonist

How can someone who is self-allegedly so smart be defying various other moderators over something so ****ing stupid?

Wow, you're right. YOU ARE THE SMART ONE!

Neither do you. All you have managed to do is start a bashfest, which has been closed several times by other moderators. Perhaps you should take a step back and look?

Lance didn't start anything - He merely argued the points. Their is nothing illegal with this thread, at all.

I see a problem. You are still foolishly arguing the name of a country. There is a county in California called Orange county. Am I to assume that it is orange?

The oranges that create my orange juice come from Orange County California. Find a better example.

You seem to be lacking in that[the wit] department in this thread. You keep using the same tired argument which is still no more valid than opinion. You do not have a universal leg to stand on, it's simply a matter of your preference over theirs. I can see no reason for this other than you are bored and feel like stirring the pot.

Not really.. How is telling someone something is not a republic an oppinion ? Facts aren't oppinions last I checked.

[protagonist]

Originally Posted by Nappa

Wow, you're right. YOU ARE THE SMART ONE!

Correct.

Originally Posted by Nappa

Lance didn't start anything - He merely argued the points. Their is nothing illegal with this thread, at all.

Other than it's unwanted by the kingdom leader. It's a kingdom forum, remember?

Originally Posted by Nappa

The oranges that create my orange juice come from Orange County California. Find a better example.

I've listed several.

Originally Posted by Nappa

Not really.. How is telling someone something is not a republic an oppinion ? Facts aren't oppinions last I checked.

He said it and now he's saying that they should change it because of that.

[falco10291029]

Uh huh. Im sorry. I give up. he's too dense and is WAY too set on what he thinks is right. May as well try to knock down a Concrete wall with a twig, it just wont happen no matter how accurate and strong your swings are, the wall just wont budge. Oh Lance, as for the insults, i always insult in arguments, dont take it personally.