Tiridates Mikadze

I was going to make "Hey it's Tirida-OHGODWHATTHEHELLSPIDERBODYOMGWTF" Tiridates. :(

Seb and I are starting the bakery. We will make butt-muffin babies and produce delictable cupcake delights. Wait, will I get to put ominous general statements on this thread? Cause, that'd be cool :D

Have them all executed for baring the taint, investigate a means of purging that universe, and bring me another bagel, if you'd be so kind.

You seem awfully eager to clear Bruno of this bad rap. Frankly, I doubt much of us care, Bruno's been an obnoxious demagogue for a long time now, and a dishonest, arrogant, id-driven one at that. His lies, pandering, and shallow use of power coupled with his unwarranted self-importance makes him hardly worth such apologetics at this point, beyond the fact that his private life has been dropped on the sidewalk like a jumper from a roof. It's kind of hard to look away from the splayed entrails, but we shouldn't be gawking so much, regardless.

THE UHOLY UNDEAD HAVE RISEN, IT MUST BE CLEANSED WITH FIRE, AND PURGED WITH FAITH. IN THE NAME OF THE HOLY ORDERS OF THE SACRED CULT OF VICTORY, I BANISH YOU BACK TO THE DARKNESS THAT SPAWNED YOU, FOUL CREATURE OF THE PIT, YOU SHALL DIE ETERNALLY FOR REARING YOUR VILE HEAD AGAIN. BURN BURN BURN BURN BURN BURN BURN.

We're oppressive badass space romans. We patrol everything that isn't a gas giant, star, or recently irradiated in an Exterminatus scale action.

Bruno's "love" issues in second life looks more like an egomaniac who's lost one of his biggest cheerleaders, and lashing out like a psychopath than mere butthurt. The cruelty, viciousness, and sheer blind rage doesn't bode well for him. I can understand your concern, Lillium, as a line should be drawn. It's hard to keep that line intact when the participants let it all hang out, and across our toes, as well. Let us not forget that Bruno has long used his banlist as a self-inflating, masturbatory tool of petty power, rather than as the final outcome of unfortunate, or out of control situations. His long standing policies of draconian, tyrannical would-be power games and changing the rules in the middle of combat doesn't exactly make him respectable in the Military Community. As for his friendship, I can't say what he's like as a friend, he's never tried with me, my only interaction with him was when he tried to shoot me in the 2142 spawn during our Campaign against them.

I'll take a copy of the Handbook, bound in leather and set with iron hinges, with a fitting that'd allow me to chain it to my belt as I go forth in the name of the Glorious Imperator.

lolexecution.

HAVING A HEART ATTACK.

Assuming the qualities of our opposition opens ourselves up to a whole world of hurt. You'd only need a meagerly clever individual to do any of the priorly mentioned activities. I don't like giving them anything more than we absolutely must.

GONNA PURGE DEM POSERS, YO.

Reveals organizational information, and can help someone prioritize targets for blackmail, investigation, etc, etc. Do it if you feel you really need to, but I'm uncomfortable with the idea.

There's an issue I'd like to point out with this: It's like handing out candy to people who are collecting information on the Ordo. This gives certain people in the Ordo headaches, when they do.

Not even against 10th Mtn Div.?

You are equally making the assumption, based on limited information, that they are up to being sinister ministers of doom and death. So far, not a peep, so we can decide either this is, in fact, not worth our time to continue looking at, as it appears to be dying, or we can continue to stare at a blank wall and hope the kool-aid man busts through. So far, I would argue it's safe and prudent to say that they are not worth being called a threat. At most, we keep our ears open for anything, but to watch them like hawks and list the group as being of stated hostile intent is alarmist, and presumptive, to say the least. Now, everyone get back on topic, or there will be far less imaginary hostility than any of you care to deal with, and of a far more immediate vicinity.

I resemble that remark. So, when will we be allowed to carpet bomb in NJ? If ever.

We should have a monstrous mixture of Baroque chasing, gilding, and ornamentation, skulls, and worn down machinery for our theme. FOR THE EMPEROOOOR!!

Adios.

Education takes many forms, as I pointed out, and dialog with peers is one of them. Through such a dialog some of us might be motivated to learn more on the subject, and in areas we had not previously considered. All in all, I still find your objection to this discussion unfortunate, if not puzzling. It's a time honored, and proven method (at least as old as the Greek Academies), and again, I honestly doubt any expert would sneer at us for having such a dialog. The wonderful thing is, you can share your opinion, and as you come upon new ideas, and information, change your opinion. And by voicing your thoughts, you can put them through a crucible, in essence experimenting on and with your opinion. There is not one thing wrong in having the discussion, even when we're mere neophytes. Silence has it's place, as does research, but learning to apply it is vital to any greater understanding.

Allow me to clarify: These are not issues of immediate universal practicality. They are not life or death. This is, however, one where there are several schools of thought, and each school has it's highly intelligent, brilliant champions. Adler, and Frankl were both opponents of reductionism in efforts to explain human behaviors, and I hardly doubt anyone here would consider them idiots, and that's just two off the top of my head. I highly doubt I'll go on to found a field of psychoanalysis, or perhaps ever contribute something of note to it's study and research, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't discuss and consider the issue with other people. Your analogy is flawed. Bear Grills and his friend are more likely to survive, but the basics of survival are the same everywhere. Three intelligent, rational individuals working together should be able to increase their chances of survival working together far better than they would alone, or if they were mentally incapable. And again, we're not wandering through a minefield, we're discussing a matter of philosophical debate, one that is hotly contested by a fair number of experts, like leading neurologists, psychologists, biochemists, geneticists, and physicists, and on all sides of the issue. Debate has long been a means of broadening the horizons and expanding the understanding of individuals, and I doubt that any of the proclaimed experts, geniuses, or professionals would come along and condemn us simply for discussing the issue. They might condemn, attack, or disagree with our particular arguments, they might defend them, but that's not what's important, what is important is that we have the dialog, and perhaps come away enriched by it. Anything less could easily be mistaken for intellectual cowardice, especially if I wasn't willing, or eager, to go to an expert and discuss it with them, but believe me, I am. I'd be delighted to probe and ask questions of them, just as I am eager to ask these questions of any person. I've discussed the issue with my professors, I've discussed it with priests and atheists, I've discussed it with my doctor. And every time, I've come away with a more nuanced understanding of the issue, and understood the arguments a bit better of both sides. There is also the issue of what would constitute expertise in this instance, as well. If you want to use your survival argument, would a physicist be able to help out more than Bear Grills? We have to consider the nature of expertise as well, so, would a physicist rely more on physics to explain an issue, or would they consider other avenues and possibilities first? What would a neurologist say? Or a Psychiatrist? Or a philosopher? Hell, what would a theologian say? But you're right. I shouldn't be worrying about this, I should simply keep my mouth shut, and do what I'm told by a specific set of specialists. I'll be sure to bear that in mind next time I'm voting, or tying my shoes, or deciding what to read at the library.

I've seen this done with bodypaint. That was unnerving.

Gonna have me a parade in Red Square.

We're not trying to solve the issue, so much as we're learning about other people's views and having a discussion. The argument "You shouldn't talk about it, discuss it, or argue over an issue until you are an expert" seems a little silly, since most experts become so by having discussions, arguments, and generally talking about a subject in order to introduce and consider new ideas, and then test them through a process of dialog and even experimentation. Dialog is important, and as humble, lowly, and unlearned as we may be, it doesn't invalidate the importance of the dialog we are having. I doubt any of us have a definitive answer, or that any of us believe we know the whole of the issue. There is no hypocrisy to that end. But yeah, I'm disappointed that your argument boiled down to pretty much this: "These guys are experts and geniuses, we should believe what they say without examining it ourselves." That constitutes essentially, blind faith. They're brilliant, intelligent people, without a doubt, but I have every right to discuss and argue the issue, and perhaps through that process, arrive to a new and more complete understanding. Making mistakes is part of learning, and while reading an argument is extremely useful, and important, don't discard the importance of the experience itself in the process of learning.

Go (Ko) and I mumbly-peg.