A Time for Change

[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.

[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.

[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 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.

[LordZen]

Originally Posted by Lance the Wind God

It wasn't for self-education, it was to make a point. You say a ton of things about other parties having the full capability to assume power if they disagree with your rule. But. These parties don't exist.

Correct. After the party legitimately gained control of the government, they sought to outlaw opposing political parties. The structure of government has not changed, and this is not to say that elections can no longer be held. Technically, those holding lower offices in government could theoretically be voted in and out. And also for national elections, those can still take place, but there is simply not many options on the ballot.

Originally Posted by Lance the Wind God

But you can't have it both ways. Either you have elections and can use it as a valid point, or you don't have elections and can't use that to justify the name.

I just mentioned that as a supporting detail explaining the problems of a truly representative people's government in the sparsely populated and poorly equipped Graal Kingdoms server.

Just trying to show, that we had tried to make it more of an open democracy, but that it just was not very effecient. This is not to say that we cant claim elections are held regularly, because we can and do, but those voting periods are no longer actually played out in-game routinely because they had been proven to be ineffecient and ineffective after the 2nd or 3rd try.

Originally Posted by Lance the Wind God

There are many more fictional people in between when you were the monarch of Zormite and when you were the first selected dictator of the Zormite Republic?

Ok, listen, I am not saying early leaders of the Zormite Republic is refering to kings and emperors and the such. I was the last Emperor, and first Dictator. There was nobody inbetween in that respect. Early leaders was meant to be interpruted more as an equivalent of America's Founding Fathers. Just a group of educated loyalists (common citizens, not "leader" leaders) who took the initiative in helping to organize the new state.

Originally Posted by Lance the Wind God

I have no problem with it, except when it's contradictory as I already noted.

Alright, forget the title of the supreme office for a second. Pretend it was really President, all this time.

Could you buy into the concept that the Republican system of government as used in Zormite was meant to not be very democratic, but actually very authoritarian, or I guess secretive and controling is a better way of saying it? This is really what it was always meant to be from a roleplaying standpoint, even though its really more of a benevolent despotism I guess? That might not be an entirely accurate reference but you get the point.

It was kind of always my intention for Zormite to operate as a Republic, but for near autocratic power to remain in the hands of the supreme authority of the land (because, of course, there was really no other option of how to do things in GK using its system).

The idea of propoganda and control of the citizenry was evident from the near start, when I introduced the Ministry of Information and Ministry of Religion (which gives away ambitions of controling what news the people are given and the enforcement of a state ran religion).

So this made most sense originally if the government was well organized like most modern countries, and operated as a republic, and a similar situation as to in the Roman Republic transpired, in which the Senate (or other legislative body) actually gave the title of Dictator to Caesar and all of the powers associated with it. The senate was authorized to make that decision from a republican standpoint because they represented the people and made decisions for them.

At least I gave the subject alot of thought, and sought some sort of historical basis rather than just pulling my ideas out of thin air..

[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.

[Lance]

Zen, I totally understand your reasoning for making it the way you did. I realize what you were trying to make, and how you went about making it. However, calling something a republic when it is just a disguised monarchy does not make it one. This is my point!

[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?

[Lance]

Originally Posted by busyrobot

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.

This is a question of an incorrect/misleading name. In the other parts of the world, they can select names that do not properly describe the government. These names can also be accepted by any number of people. That does not make the name correct.

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.

But this isn't about accepting a name. I made a simple statement - the name is inaccurate.

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.

This isn't about accepting a name's inaccuracy, man. It's about a name's accuracy. I recognize that it probably won't change as a result of my statement, but that doesn't mean that I shouldn't have made my statement to begin with.

I still say that your assertion that 'the world is using inaccurately' and that you possess the truth could be a little off......

For the whateverth time, where did I make this assertion?

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?

If we have the capability to correct an error, and have (by assumption) identified it as such, then why in the world shouldn't we?

[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!

[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.

[busyrobot]

Why can't you accept that the fact that China is a republic and is known to be as such by the whole world over?

If the entire English speaking world considers China a republic, don't you think that just maybe......it is?

Secondarily, Zormite wants to be a Republic and as such, is not going to change its name because you think its inaccurate.

[falco10291029]

Just leave him. Like 9i said he wont sway. Leave him be.

[Python523]

This thread was meant to discuss the change in leadership, not the naming of the kingdom or whatever these pointless arguements are about.

[Lance]

Originally Posted by 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.

Stop being childish. Respond to my points, or do not respond.

Originally Posted by busyrobot

Why can't you accept that the fact that China is a republic and is known to be as such by the whole world over?

China is a communist country. Supposedly, the workers have representatives which choose the government somehow. By that logic, it's a republic.

If the entire English speaking world considers China a republic, don't you think that just maybe......it is?

Bad premise, good conclusion. It's a republic because it's a republic, not because people think it is one.

Secondarily, Zormite wants to be a Republic and as such, is not going to change its name because you think its inaccurate.

Okay. Padren. Fifth+ time. I did not ask them to change their name.

Originally Posted by Python523

This thread was meant to discuss the change in leadership, not the naming of the kingdom or whatever these pointless arguements are about.

That's nice. This thread isn't breaking any rules, though, so I have reopened it.

[Python523]

Originally Posted by Lance

That's nice. This thread isn't breaking any rules, though, so I have reopened it.

Offtopic, in my opinion. The purpose is to discuss the change of powers, you are talking about the how appropriate the name "republic" and such is.

[Lance]

Originally Posted by Python523

Offtopic, in my opinion. The purpose is to discuss the change of powers, you are talking about the how appropriate the name "republic" and such is.

Need I request that you search for all of the posts wherein Kaimetsu explained that offtopic posting is not against the rules?

[Darlene159]

If you guys want to argue about rules, do it in PM's please....and stop opening and closing the thread, if a mod closes it, leave it alone unless a forum admin says otherwise

[TeRRi2k]

So shouldn't this stay closed then? (or was it just reopened? just read this thread today so I'm not sure)

Never got around to congratulate you Aki, so congrats. Like I said, I don't think I ever seriously considered YOU being in power...(=b because you're too silly) but I trust Wren's judgement and I personally think you'll make a good leader as well. Good luck!

[Monkeyboy_McGee]

Originally Posted by lance the Wind God

Except that he's using the existence of these parties to justify other statements

I'd love to know where you got that idea from, man.

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!

Lol, not really

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.

Lol, you seem to be a bit confused here. You're saying there is no proof that the world is not flat? Great, ok, right, i guess that means the place you live in must be floating out in space somewhere. Watch out for those meteors, lance!

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

Whee, i count one! Anyway. Why don't you show me the irrelevance, lance? Because i can't see any :O!
There are plenty of people who can see the relevance quite clearly, and then there's you denying it. It's like saying:
"There's a kid who damages his eyes, and so everything to him appears blurred. He reasons that the many many people who see things as sharp, clear and detailed are the ones with bad eyesight and it is he alone who sees the real world - a blurry one." Go get some glasses, lance.

2) Wren is the one who was going to close this thread when it did not warrant closing, not me.

Lol.

their color is crimson

Zormite Republic
We are zormites.

and they consider themselves a haven of sorts.

Zormite Republic
We consider ourselves a Republic of sorts.

However, again, that's not the issue.

No, but it is an identical one. Why are you adressing this one and not that one?

Sigh.

Yawn.

Except I did not claim that these world governments are wrong...?

Yes you did, look:

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

Lolz0rs. Your next move of course will probably be to trip me on technicalities, saying "that quote doesnt actually show me saying that it isn't accurate. Don't bother, you know full well that you've shown your disagreement with those governments.

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.

Poor you. Perhaps you should have taken into consideration whether WE would get frustrated if you tried to lead this thread away from its original topic. Or are we not important for lance the Wind God's consideration?

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

And we have shown how we feel about your suggestion. That said, why are you still here?

[falco10291029]

Whee, i count one! Anyway. Why don't you show me the irrelevance, lance? Because i can't see any :O!
There are plenty of people who can see the relevance quite clearly, and then there's you denying it. It's like saying:
"There's a kid who damages his eyes, and so everything to him appears blurred. He reasons that the many many people who see things as sharp, clear and detailed are the ones with bad eyesight and it is he alone who sees the real world - a blurry one." Go get some glasses, lance.

*claps* YAy he got the simile io couldnt come up with, but tried, as u can see. I geuss ill respond a bit.
You see Lance, you disagree with the name, but hardly anyone else does. This and the fact you are pointing it out leaves me this:

you constantly say show me the relevance, or show me the post, well since you are the accuser, you have the burden of proof, not the people defending it. You have yet to prove anything beyond the fact that you cannot argue well. Zormite is a repuyblic, and will keep the name as such (As far as i know). You stated that you didnt like it. You were told no one cares. Why are you still saying this then? It's like in Science class, they ask how u think the world started, you say "I think it always was there". "very nice" the teacher says. She goes on tecxhing "Well actu.." "I think it always was there", says the metaphor of Laqnce again. "We heard you". "Actuall..." "I think it always was there", says the metaphor once more. As you can see it gets quite annoying. This is relevant, dont say otherwise.

[Python523]

Originally Posted by Lance

Need I request that you search for all of the posts wherein Kaimetsu explained that offtopic posting is not against the rules?

I didn't know "Kaimetsu's Word" was a synonym for "the rules".

[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.

[falco10291029]

BAMORZ! his post there combined with my last one say we win *tries to close thread but realizes he has no mod powers*:'(

[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.

[falco10291029]

Ive got a better example: I know of a sea, called the yellow sea. i looked, but oh it isnt yellow! nothing about it is yellow. better example.

[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.

[busyrobot]

Nappa, if you were at a city hall meeting, and an issue was brought up, you said your bit, your requests were considered inadquetely argued, and the meeting moved on....... if you badgered on about it would get you would be thrown out and possibly locked up.

There is a reason for that, based on laws that have been refined over a very long time to balance people's right to be heard vs the right of other people not even get a chance to have their voices heard because of another's whining on and on.

The spirit of the rules to every forum is based on that balance.



Regarding this tired and truly 'of the undead' topic, (having been closed by a moderator, and reopened by an arguer), I really really hope we find where to stick this freak'n wooden stake soon and be done with it.


from the Constitition:

2. Legislative
The Legislative branch shall be comprised of the rest of the political party which is in power at the time. These people have the power to propose treaties and draft laws which are acceptable under Constitutional standards. To do either of these things, a 2/3 majority vote must be reached in order for the law or treaty proposition can be officially enacted. The Legislative branch may be given additional rights if permitted by the senior official, and also retains the right to veto any action made by the Executive branch if a 3/4 majority vote is reached. However, because the Head of State is also the senior official of the party in power, this person is intrusted to know best the goals and ideology of the party, and is therefore entitled to overturn vetos and any official action made by the rest of the party.

This is the concept of a voting body making ruling decisions, period.

Now, from http://www.worldwidewebfind.com/ency.../republic.html

Republic
A republic is a form of government (and a state so governed) where a monarch is not the head of state. The word is derived from the Latin res publica, or "public affair", and suggests an ownership and control of the state by the population at large. The concept of democracy, however, is not implicit to that of a republic. The republican form of government may involve a limited democracy, where such rights are available only to a limited group of people, as is the case in many of today's dictatorial or totalitarian states. The term is also broad enough to include many of today's advanced democracies.

Do you see the relevancy this time Lance?

A limited group of people in the Zormite Republic get to vote, just like they do in real world nations that are also defined as..... Republics.

It even stated the definition as being broad enough to include concepts so crazy as wacky totalitarian places like China could even accurately be called a Republic. Imagine that....wow, whooda thunk.

[falco10291029]

*obviously sarcasm* Wow Lance, who woulda thought that the great wond god was wrong?!

if you say those things arent irreleveant, i will slap you....

[GoZelda]

Republic
A republic is a form of government (and a state so governed) where a monarch is not the head of state. The word is derived from the Latin res publica, or "public affair", and suggests an ownership and control of the state by the population at large. The concept of democracy, however, is not implicit to that of a republic. The republican form of government may involve a limited democracy, where such rights are available only to a limited group of people, as is the case in many of today's dictatorial or totalitarian states. The term is also broad enough to include many of today's advanced democracies.

Look up synonyms of Monarch and of Dictator please.

[busyrobot]

Originally Posted by GoZelda

Look up synonyms of Monarch and of Dictator please.

How about you explain whatever you are thinking, as Zormite is ruled by a Dictator, not a Monarch.

[Monkeyboy_McGee]

Oh look, lance's skydog has returned from his holiday in the slipstream.

Originally Posted by Nappa

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

The fish i had the other week came from the atlantic ocean. Shall we rename it "Fish ocean" instead? Nah, lets not

Originally Posted by GoZelda

Look up synonyms of Monarch and of Dictator please.

Yay, i get a turn to do it now!

IRRELEVANT!!1111.One

[falco10291029]

lmao actually it is we proved that Zormite shapes up to a definition of a republic. And I looked up, and dictator is a synonym for Monacrch, but when we first learn what a synonym is, we learn that it means a word that has the same OR SIMILAR definition. Dictator is different than monarch, it is listed as a synonym because of a few similarities, but not enough to go against the definition of a republic.

[GoZelda]

Originally Posted by falco10291029

lmao actually it is we proved that Zormite shapes up to a definition of a republic. And I looked up, and dictator is a synonym for Monacrch, but when we first learn what a synonym is, we learn that it means a word that has the same OR SIMILAR definition. Dictator is different than monarch, it is listed as a synonym because of a few similarities, but not enough to go against the definition of a republic.

You posted 5 times in a row...?

[falco10291029]

no i didnt, 5 times in a row would be 1 after another and such, its 1 post go back to preschool

[GoZelda]

Originally Posted by falco10291029

no i didnt, 5 times in a row would be 1 after another and such, its 1 post go back to preschool

Here, look at this. A bit odd due to saving.

[busyrobot]

Originally Posted by GoZelda

Here, look at this. A bit odd due to saving.

You are viewing the thread in the tree view mode, if you view it by time of post you'll see how it should read.


You are mislead by the fact that people often hit 'reply' or quote to a post part way instead of at the end. For those of us who view it in 'by date' mode it reads in proper order without 5 grouped replies.

[GoZelda]

Originally Posted by busyrobot

You are viewing the thread in the tree view mode, if you view it by time of post you'll see how it should read.


You are mislead by the fact that people often hit 'reply' or quote to a post part way instead of at the end. For those of us who view it in 'by date' mode it reads in proper order without 5 grouped replies.

Even still, he's the only one with whom it looks like that. There should be a rule against it =(