The Zuma

[Norrel]

Yet this?

There's no salient, rational response you can have to something like that. Also, I never claimed to be some sort of paragon of discoursive integrity. But yeah that comment was absurdly funny and dumb and pompous.

[Penchant]

There's no salient, rational response you can have to something like that. Also, I never claimed to be some sort of paragon of discoursive integrity. But yeah that comment was absurdly funny and dumb and pompous.

So you were replying to the Kwanstein with his own words or you thought that Vellos's response was "inadequate for a man of thought"? That is where I am confused. Also we are hugely off-topic.

[Norrel]

So you were replying to the Kwanstein with his own words or you thought that Vellos's response was "inadequate for a man of thought"? That is where I am confused. Also we are hugely off-topic.

I was quoting it because it was the worst post ever made

[Kwanstein]

What, exactly, is wrong with the reasoning of my post? Or do you mean to say that it's 'wrong' in some sort of abstract, philosophical sense, such as that it's an unprecedented breach of internet social protocols and therefore immoral.

[Norrel]

What, exactly, is wrong with the reasoning of my post? Or do you mean to say that it's 'wrong' in some sort of abstract, philosophical sense, such as that it's an unprecedented breach of internet social protocols and therefore immoral.

It's not abstract or philosophical, it's hilariously masturbatory. I don't know how you can expect people to take it seriously when you talk like that. You're obviously not a thinking man if you don't even know how to build up credibility. Aristotlean artistic proofs, much? Or maybe your time's too caught up, as an educated gentleman, being an internet sophist to learn about how to actually persuade people. Or at least not come off as a jerkass over two sentences.

Also it's a not a breach of "internet social protocols" (lol), it's a breach of... basic human interaction?

[Vellos]

What, exactly, is wrong with the reasoning of my post? Or do you mean to say that it's 'wrong' in some sort of abstract, philosophical sense, such as that it's an unprecedented breach of internet social protocols and therefore immoral.

I was just chuckling at the pomposity of identifying yourself as a "thinking man," implicitly pegging the rest of us as not being such. Which is a little insulting.

And.... yeah you kind of just ignored my whole post. You can't just write it off. I mean, you can– but it was good advice.

[Kwanstein]

It's not abstract or philosophical, it's hilariously masturbatory. I don't know how you can expect people to take it seriously when you talk like that. You're obviously not a thinking man if you don't even know how to build up credibility. Aristotlean artistic proofs, much? Or maybe your time's too caught up, as an educated gentleman, being an internet sophist to learn about how to actually persuade people. Or at least not come off as a jerkass over two sentences.

Also it's a not a breach of "internet social protocols" (lol), it's a breach of... basic human interaction?

You expect to read Aristotlean level rhetoric on an internet forum? Now who's being pompous...

I was just chuckling at the pomposity of identifying yourself as a "thinking man," implicitly pegging the rest of us as not being such. Which is a little insulting.

And.... yeah you kind of just ignored my whole post. You can't just write it off. I mean, you can– but it was good advice.

But most people are not thinking men, if they were then the distinction would mean nothing.

[Anaris]

But most people are not thinking men, if they were then the distinction would mean nothing.

Didja ever think, Kwanstein, that maybe, just maybe, the distinction does mean nothing...?

[Indirik]

I think that's enough back and forth OT debate for this thread. If you want to continue this debate, or perhaps discuss the correct spelling of Aristotelian, take it to a new thread or to PMs.

[Phellan]

I think that's enough back and forth OT debate for this thread. If you want to continue this debate, or perhaps discuss the correct spelling of Aristotelian, take it to a new thread or to PMs.

+1, correct spelling comment made me actually laugh.

So, Zuma. 

Are they still paying top dollar for food?  I remember the D'Harans were none to pleased at being out bid back in the day when I had a few thousand bushels to sell. . .

[Dishman]

How about Zuma's war on Morek? I wonder if that might change. 

[Penchant]

Sadly, the Zuma no longer buy food at top dollar.

[NoblesseChevaleresque]

Impossible, we're persecuted everywhere we go.

"We"?

You're not even in Aurvandil.

[Vellos]

Speaking of the Zuma– will be interesting to see if they make any reaction to Aurvandil's invasion of Barca.

[^ban^]

Speaking of the Zuma– will be interesting to see if they make any reaction to Aurvandil's invasion of Barca.

Why would they? I don't know much about their relationships, so I'm curious.