The Battle Bar, Our Wretched Hive of Scum and Villainy

Started by Lord Lucien3,287 pages

Originally posted by psmith81992
I think you're the only one who believes I purchased the game to mend my "massive" lie lol. I told the lie to get a rise out of you and now when it's finally ran its course I'm admitting it. Only a mentally unstable twit would actually believe I purchased the game to cover up a lie.
Or you're only now admitting to lying because enough time has passed that you're not as embarrassed for being called out. And openly admitting it under the guise of "having a laugh" negates any criticism levied against you for covering your ears and drowning out those who called you on your foolish bullshit. Amazing.

I have never been so honored to be in the presence of such a master of deception. We are gladdened by your presence, Your Massiveness.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Just admit you're wrong Nai. Stop rationalizing. And I said just admit your mistake. I didn't say I owned you. Your response was this:

I know you're allergic to everything rational, but it is still a fact, that me being wrong, is based solely upon your intention when you wrote the statement, which is something that can't be checked. Thus when you say I'm wrong, I'm wrong as far as the interpretation of your intention goes. Which is different from being wrong in a broader sense of the term. Got it?

But then, actually, I can just be wrong if I tried to be right (as in "attempting to understand you correctly"😉 - a possibility, that you have ruled out yourself. D'uh.


Which is the equivalent of "well..uh..I kicked your ass last time so ur stupid". Bravo, Nai. Reminding us of your infinite supply of insecurities.

No.
Actually it's the equivalent of "Uh. You're a moron, so stop trying to act smart because you aren't." In a friendly fashion. And insecurities? Oh yes. I have many of those, but none of them has an impact on my postings here. For example, I'm rather insecure what the meaning of life is and the uncertainty when it comes to the question who will win the DFL-Cup this weekend is a real pain in the ass.

Or you're only now admitting to lying because enough time has passed that you're not as embarrassed for being called out. And openly admitting it under the guise of "having a laugh" negates any criticism levied against you for covering your ears and drowning out those who called you on your foolish bullshit. Amazing.

I have never been so honored to be in the presence of such a master of deception. We are gladdened by your presence, Your Massiveness.


AH yes, the "we" again. Lol you're dumb. The simple fact that you are retarded enough for carrying on this long, trying to get me to admit something, is evidence of doing it the right way🙂

I know you're allergic to everything rational, but it is still a fact, that me being wrong, is based solely upon your intention when you wrote the statement, which is something that can't be checked.

Ah yes, the continuous 'ur stupid cause im wrong' routine. You are wrong because you assumed you knew what I meant, and then continued to claim that it's my fault I didn't clarify instead of you asking for clarification without sounding like a jackass.

No.
Actually it's the equivalent of "Uh. You're a moron, so stop trying to act smart because you aren't." In a friendly fashion. And insecurities? Oh yes. I have many of those, but none of them has an impact on my postings here. For example, I'm rather insecure what the meaning of life is and the uncertainty when it comes to the question who will win the DFL-Cup this weekend is a real pain in the ass.

If I'm a moron, and you ended up being wrong and spent paragraphs trying to hide that fact and/or rationalize it, what does that make you, self proclaimed intellectual? Just admit you're wrong Nai, we won't look down on you, I promise.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Kinda like Nemebro just jumps in to join a conversation, pretending I'm delusional and that I lack self awareness, when my posts are pretty obvious. But that's what you get from mentally challenged followers🙂
Actually I was ironically posting knowing full-well that I would bait this reaction (And several more with my one post) from you. It was as amusing as I suspected it would be. Thank you.

Yawn, people on the internet trying to be Teh Mastur Manipulatorz.

Originally posted by NemeBro
Actually I was ironically posting knowing full-well that I would bait this reaction (And several more with my one post) from you. It was as amusing as I suspected it would be. Thank you.

Uhuh.. As Frank said regarding his son George, "my George is not clever enough to hatch a scheme like this".

YouTube video

Originally posted by psmith81992
Ah yes, the continuous 'ur stupid cause im wrong' routine. You are wrong because you assumed you knew what I meant, and then continued to claim that it's my fault I didn't clarify instead of you asking for clarification without sounding like a jackass.

*Sigh*
The point is, that I can't be wrong here.
Interpretation is based on your statement, the context that statement was made in and my perception of that situation. That my interpretation didn't meet your intention is pretty much irrelevant. The meer fact that you worded your statement in a way to allow my interpretation makes my interpretation a correct possibility.

We could start a debate here based on literature studies, but I'm rather certain, that you didn't read Roland Barthes ("The Death of the Author"😉 or Ansgar Nünning ("Unreliable Narration"😉, making that rather pointless.

Or you could admit, that it wasn't unreasonable to assume, that when you make a comment on a picture you posted with the announced intention to mock the Democrats, it would likewise be intended to mock Democrats. Instead of being a thoughtful statement just aimed at a very particular - yet significant - part of the Party.

Not, that this would make any kind of difference, if we go back to the facts: You made an assumption regarding a "general opinion" within a group based on the (apparently fabricated) statement of a single member of the aforementioned group. Is that, somehow, less reason to call you out on faulty reasoning? I doubt it. So what was your point again?


If I'm a moron, and you ended up being wrong and spent paragraphs trying to hide that fact and/or rationalize it, what does that make you, self proclaimed intellectual? Just admit you're wrong Nai, we won't look down on you, I promise.

It makes me a person capable of defending his reasoning and decissions, placing me on a position above your own already. I could also point out, that I have managed to utilize different defensive options over the course of the last pages, where you sticked to the "I didn't mean it so you are wrong"-topos throughout our little talk, which makes me the more versatile thinker and debater. Aside from the fact, that I could claim to have deliberately manipulated you into this very diatribe with a mere question for entertaining purpose, making you my personal tool.

Now you can dance for the puppetmaster - or not. I have to catch up on some sleep.

*Sigh*
The point is, that I can't be wrong here.
Interpretation is based on your statement, the context that statement was made in and my perception of that situation. That my interpretation didn't meet your intention is pretty much irrelevant. The meer fact that you worded your statement in a way to allow my interpretation makes my interpretation a correct possibility.

Jesus christ Nai.. I'm not going to appeal to anyone else but the only other person that read our conversation seemed to have my line of thinking. I worded my statement in a way that most normal people would take it, to mean most, not universal. But here's a big sigh to you because you're still not getting it.

Whether you're wrong or not about the semantics, you were wrong about being presumptuous, and instead trying to put blame on me for not clarifying, when you didn't ask for clarification in favor of being presumptuous.

It makes me a person capable of defending his reasoning and decissions, placing me on a position above your own already. I could also point out, that I have managed to utilize different defensive options over the course of the last pages, where you sticked to the "I didn't mean it so you are wrong"-topos throughout our little talk, which makes me the more versatile thinker and debater.

No Nai, what you've done is the equivalent of "let's see if I can write as much as possible so it would be hard to ascertain where I messed up. I kept it short and sweet. I said X, you assumed I said Y, you didn't ask for clarification, you assumed, you were wrong. The end. Less is more here.

Aside from the fact, that I could claim to have deliberately manipulated you into this very diatribe with a mere question for entertaining purpose, making you my personal tool.

You could, yet your entire reputation on here is to fight to the very end, right or wrong, and that has never changed. Now admit you're wrong or move on.

Or you could admit, that it wasn't unreasonable to assume, that when you make a comment on a picture you posted with the announced intention to mock the Democrats, it would likewise be intended to mock Democrats. Instead of being a thoughtful statement just aimed at a very particular - yet significant - part of the Party.

I didn't see you giving Janus this pep talk when he did the same thing about Republicans. Ah, the guise of objectivity.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Uhuh.. As Frank said regarding his son George, "my George is not clever enough to hatch a scheme like this".

YouTube video

Yes, I anticipated this response. You activated my trap card so willingly, like a rape victim wearing a skimpy dress in a dark alley.

Whether you're wrong or not about the semantics, you were wrong about being presumptuous, and instead trying to put blame on me for not clarifying, when you didn't ask for clarification in favor of being presumptuous.

Both approaches have merit, namely asking for clarification on things can be an inefficient form of communication, when simply making a safe assumption can be more efficient but bears the risk of getting the wrong impression of what someone is saying. I think which approach you should take should depend on the situation.

When trying to condescend someone, I think that you should be entirely sure, and that it's only just that you be held accountable for what may very well have been a misunderstanding, given the sheer cheek of it.

So thanks for calling me out for knowing your primary language better than you do - because, you see, "your" definition made it to the second position of the Dictionary list, meaning it is the less common one. D'uh.

Also, you can't hide from your own words Nai. You have since formed other defences, but this was your initial argument.

After the airing of Ventress's betrayal, and subsequent revenge, Star Wars: The Clone Wars Magazine 5 presented an Infinities scenario. Ventress returned to the Nightsisters' coven, and the Nightsisters instead imbued her with the dark magick ritual, as opposed to Savage Opress. Ventress's speed, power and agility were augmented and she was outfitted with dueling armor capable of deflecting lightsabers and blaster bolts. Asajj also added more tattoos to her face. Seeking revenge, Ventress then methodically took out all of Count Dooku's security systems and made her way into his inner sanctum to confront him in combat. Shrugging off or deflecting his Force lightning, she used her double-bladed lightsaber to tear through his defenses and put an end to him once and for all. Darth Sidious, pleased to have a younger, more powerful apprentice, knighted Ventress as Darth Vindicaa. Ventress was silently planning to eventually overthrow him as well.

Infinities always have such cool stories.

Originally posted by Astor Ebligis
Both approaches have merit, namely asking for clarification on things can be an inefficient form of communication, when simply making a safe assumption can be more efficient but bears the risk of getting the wrong impression of what someone is saying. I think which approach you should take should depend on the situation.

When trying to condescend someone, I think that you should be entirely sure, and that it's only just that you be held accountable for what may very well have been a misunderstanding, given the sheer cheek of it.

Also, you can't hide from your own words Nai. You have since formed other defences, but this was your initial argument.

Some people get it, others will continue the fight til the end.

Man, tinnitus sucks, ya'll.

There's a phucking keyboard playing in my brain. Hope this shit isn't permanent.

Lmao.

Originally posted by UltimateAnomaly
Yawn, people on the internet trying to be Teh Mastur Manipulatorz.
There's a trope for that.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
Man, tinnitus sucks, ya'll.

There's a phucking keyboard playing in my brain. Hope this shit isn't permanent.

My condolences. Tinnitus sucks.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Darth Sandbag?

No, me you idiot.

http://www.cracked.com/video_18887_a-breakup-letter-to-upworthy.html

Originally posted by Nephthys

Lmao.

I remember that episode too. Lol.

Originally posted by Petrus
No, me you idiot.

Sorry, the window of opportunity to make a comeback has elapsed.

That window is never closed in this place.

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-military-plans-for-dealing-with-aliens-zombies-and-other-unexpected-things


Earlier this week, many an eyebrow was raised when documents outlining a fictional US military plan to fend off a zombie apocalypse were released by Foreign Policy. Obviously, that contingency plan isn’t real, but in the annals of military planning, there are a number of fully-real plans for scenarios none of us would expect to happen.

The zombie plan, otherwise known as CONPLAN 8888-11 or “Counter-Zombie Dominance,” is actually just an in-house training tool to help teach students how to understand “basic concepts of military plans, and order development,” a Navy spokeswoman told Foreign Policy. The reason the US military selected an outrageous scenario was that true-to-life plans—even for training purposes—can cause political fallout if the general public mistakes them for reality.

That’s happened before. Take, for example, the now infamous plan to invade Canada, codenamed WAR PLAN RED, which was declassified in 1974. The plan for war against the UK, it aims to conquer Canada first, beginning with a gas attack on Halifax (sorry guys) which was a key resupply port for the British. Invading Britain was later on in the timetable.

The inevitably chilly invasion of Canada outlined in WAR PLAN RED was a part of a series of color coded war scenarios gamed out by the US military after World War I. All told, there are 150 known to exist, which include strategies for China, Iceland, and Mexico, among other places.

A 1904 US military chart outlining the symbols used if it happened to go to war with just about every big power at the time. Image: Strategy Theory

While potentially eyebrow raising, the colored war plans and their ilk deal with situations that are entirely plausible, and much more recent iterations of such plans have come to light. For example, China has a plan should the North Korean government implode.

In a particularly startling case of government alarm, British military intelligence once created a contingency plan to deal with rising anger over the economic crisis, which affected all but the very richest of Brits. Concerns about the so-called "summer of discontent" and attacks from “political extremists” prompted military leadership to draw up worst case scenario plans, although details of what exactly they would entail were sketchy.

But, leave it to the US government—developers of a non-lethal bomb that would chemically make enemy troops want to have sex with one another rather than fight—to develop contingency plans for space-alien invasion.

The Search For Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) had a division known as the Post-Detection Task Group, which ended up making a series of recommendations on what to do if aliens are discovered. According to one plan, whoever finds alien signals would be required to tell the UN and International Astronomical Union, and share their data. Next, after an announcement, the various collaborating agencies and governments would collectively figure out if and how to respond, and what message to send. Essentially, the plan for meeting aliens is to figure it out as we go along.

Should the extraterrestrials try to communicate with or land on Earth, the protocol, adopted in 1989 by SETI, suggests that scientists and engineers take the lead on communications—not the military, as Hollywood might have you expect. But if you’re interested in the latter scenario there’s literature on planet defense available, though sadly, if official plans exist, they are classified.

Lastly, let’s not forget everyone’s favorite radio blowhard, Rush Limbaugh, who once asked a couple military officers on the air whether or not there was a plan to remove an American president who, well, was un-American. “Are there contingency plans to deal with a president who may not believe that the US is the solution to the world's problems?” he asked. Apparently there are not, according to his guests. I guess you can't have a plan for every unthinkable scenario out there.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1581124473?ie=UTF8&tag=slatmaga-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1581124473

almost tempted to pick up the above book, be handy for campaigns etc maybe ?

http://time.com/90617/china-north-korea-plan/

http://www.coseti.org/setiprot.htm

So manly.