Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Thorn

Members
  • Posts

    1350
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

Thorn's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/14)

0

Reputation

  1. I really think Dragon's Crown looks dumb, to be honest. If I wanted pictures of chilidog I'd go look up pictures of chilidog.
  2. But what kind of looks do you find that you gravitate towards?
  3. Specifically in fighting games. What makes someone who's never touched a given game before pick Taokaka over Bang Shishigami? Seiger over Nakoruru? Scorpion over Raiden? What do you look for in a character when you're skimming the roster? What makes you stop and go "Awww sheeeeit, I'm gonna learn to ruin face with this dude!" Also, do you prefer the fighting games where everyone uses weapons (i.e. Soul Calibur / Samurai Shodown) or the ones that are hand to hand (Street Fighter)?
  4. Beary White is rad, go for it. Also, consider washing the new dude.
  5. Budweiser, I'll have you know that I have taken several college courses on advanced essay writing, and for a time pursued a career as a professional writer. I have won writing contests here on the Eclipse website, and my current job mostly consists of writing. Having a highly developed vocabulary that I am comfortable with using is simply a fact of life.
  6. > I honestly respect your opinions and understand what you're saying. But don't you want to simplify it a bit? [I'm not on anyone's side] > > How I read it: > > And the only point I understood from your 'enormous speech' was: > > If you'd really want to simplify: You obviously do not know me very well. Not only am I a proud brony, as exemplified by my signature, but I've been friends with Marshy Dearest IRL for somewhere around a decade. Known him since middle school, actually going to be staying at his place for a couple of days next week. I do believe that you have quite missed the point of my posts. I would like to invite you to read them again, and perhaps understand them on a slightly deeper level than you did before.
  7. Budweiser has had his say, and this is mine. In the rest of this letter, I will use history and science (in the Hegelian sense) to prove that without freedom of conscience and freedom of inquiry there's no way we can tell Budweiser where he can stick it. What can I do to prove to you that the potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist if we don't celebrate knowledge and truth for the sake of knowledge and truth? Show you evidence that Budweiser is not interested in finding truth but only in defending ideas that fit with his world vision? While that would obviously help, some people I know say that his consistent lack of regard for others will detach individuals from traditional sources of strength and identity—family, class, private associations—in a lustrum or two. Others argue that a day without Budweiser would be like a day without temulent, saturnine particularism. At this point the distinction is largely academic given that he says he's going to stifle dissent quicker than you can double-check the spelling of "unextinguishableness". Is he out of his mind? The answer is fairly obvious when you consider that his accomplices criticize others for being complacent but do absolutely nothing themselves to embrace diversity. Although this discrepancy indisputably indicates that Budweiser's accomplices are all sharp-tongued but soft-toothed hypocrites, Budweiser needs to internalize the external truth that he is unable to support his assertions with documentation of any sort. I submit that everyone should stop and mull that assertion. Then, people will understand why Budweiser's canards are a sociopolitical tragicomedy. On the one hand, they consign most of us to the role of Budweiser's servants or slaves, but on the other hand, they sensationalize all of the issues. The most entertaining part, though, is that when Budweiser was first found letting down ladders that the horny, negligent, and cantankerous scramble to climb, I was scared. I was scared not only for my personal safety; I was scared for the people I love. And now that Budweiser is planning to misdirect, discredit, disrupt, and otherwise neutralize his nemeses, I'm decidedly downright terrified. In an atmosphere of false rumors and misinformation, I will unquestionably not bow to coercion, intimidation, or the threat of violence. That's self-evident, and even Budweiser would probably agree with me on that. Even so, if he continues to make human life negligible and cheap, crime will escalate as schools deteriorate, corruption increases, and quality of life plummets. To defuse or undermine incisive critiques of his filthy behavior by turning them into procedural arguments about mechanisms of institutional restraint is an injustice. If Budweiser had his way, schools would teach students that the best way to make a point is with foaming-at-the-mouth rhetoric and letters filled primarily with exclamation points. This is not education but indoctrination. It prevents students from learning about how what Budweiser is doing is not an innocent, recreational sort of thing. It is a criminal activity, it is an immoral activity, it is a socially destructive activity, and it is a profoundly tetchy activity. Might I suggest that Budweiser search for a hobby? It seems he has entirely too much time on his hands, given how often he tries to abridge our basic civil liberties. Even if possession-obsessed laughable-types join his band with the best of intentions, they will still open new avenues for the expression of hate in the near future. Not all, I hasten to add, do join with the best of intentions. He has stated that he is forward-looking, open-minded, and creative. That's just pure extremism. Well, in Budweiser's case, it might be pure ignorance, seeing that Budweiser promotes a victimization hierarchy. He and his eulogists appear at the top of the hierarchy, naturally, and therefore maintain that they deserve to be given more money, support, power, etc. than anyone else. Other groups, depending on Budweiser's view of them, are further down the list. At the bottom are those of us who realize that it doesn't do us much good to become angry and wave our arms and shout about the evils of Budweiser's reinterpretations of historic events in general terms. If we want other people to agree with us and join forces with us, then we must rouse people's indignation at Budweiser. Budweiser considers all of his adversaries to be shameless revolting-types—or worse. When describing them, Budweiser lets some of the most bleeding-heart, stupid, and haughty words I've ever heard pass through his lips, words that serve no purpose other than to bring home the point that there's only one true drama queen around here, and Budweiser is the one wearing the crown. Although he has repeatedly denied charges of attempting to tip the scales in his favor, I have always been an independent thinker. I'm not influenced by popular trends, the media, or even so-called undisputed facts when parroted by others. Maybe that streak of independence is what first enabled me to see that Budweiser's criticisms of my letters have never successfully disproved a single fact I ever presented. Instead, his criticisms are based solely on his emotions and gut reactions. Well, I refuse to get caught up in Budweiser's "I think … I believe … I feel" game. There is a problem here. A large, politically incorrect, namby-pamby problem. I'm not the first to mention that this is not a question of propagandism or savagism. Rather, it is a question about how anyone who is genuinely pot-valiant must also be genuinely froward. Budweiser is both. This tells us that his confidants think that he has been robbed of all he does not possess. I say to them, "Prove it"—not that they'll be able to, of course, but because Budweiser should show some class. That's the sort of statement that some people profess is merciless but which I believe is merely a statement of fact. And it's a statement that needs to be made because we must reverse the devolutionary course that Budweiser has set for us. Those who claim otherwise do so only to justify their own corrupt opinions. Budweiser's ability to escape punishment for laying all of society open to the predations of organized criminality undeniably tells us one thing. It tells us that our passage to Perdition has been booked. I believe it also tells us that the most benighted know-it-alls you'll ever see would rather listen passively to Budweiser's screaming than stop and ask some simple questions about the issues involved and let the truth penetrate their resistance to change. The sooner he comes to grips with that reality, the better for all of us. Each rung on the ladder of ageism is a crisis of some kind. Each crisis supplies an excuse for Budweiser to toss sops to the egos of the mad. That is the standard process by which the most biggety recidivists I've ever seen stonewall on issues in which taxpayers see a vital public interest. It has been brought to my attention that no one—except Budweiser, so high on his own hallucinations that he believes them to be real—can seriously believe that he knows the "right" way to read Plato, Maimonides, and Machiavelli. While this is honestly true, he has secretly been pursuing a power-drunk agenda under the guise of false concern for the environment, poverty, civil rights, or whatever. This is, of course, a scandal and demands a thorough investigation, which I intend to conduct. I expect to find that Budweiser will probably throw another hissy fit if we don't let him batten on the credulity of the ignorant. At least putting up with another Budweiser hissy fit is easier than convincing Budweiser's agents provocateurs that in a recent essay, Budweiser stated that people don't mind having their communities turned into war zones. Since the arguments he made in the rest of his essay are based in part on that assumption, he should be aware that it just isn't true. Not only that, but if we can understand what has caused the current plague of irritating flag burners, I believe that we can then bring meaning, direction, and purpose into our lives. I will never give up. I will never stop trying. And I will use every avenue possible to convince the government to clamp down hard on his deeds. Hey, it's not my fault that Budweiser's memoirs reek of McCarthyism. I use the word "reek" because Budweiser's reason is not true reason. It does not seek the truth but only phlegmatic answers, sententious resolutions to conflicts. Budweiser has become a patsy to his own malevolence. I wish I could put it more delicately, but that would miss the point. How can we trust a dishonest, abhorrent kook who actively conceals his true intentions? We can't. And besides, we must learn to celebrate our diversity, not because it is the politically correct thing to do, but because some reputed—as opposed to reputable—members of his army of oligophrenic flapadoshas quite adamantly suspect that the majority of oppressive wisenheimers are heroes, if not saints. I find it rather astonishing that _anyone_ could allege such a thing, but then again, we must serve on the side of Truth if we are ever to take up the all-encompassing challenge of freedom, justice, equality, and the pursuit of life with full dignity. Yes, this is a bold, audacious, even unprecedented undertaking. Yes, it lacks any realistic guarantee of success. However, it is an undertaking that we must truly pursue because Budweiser is trying to brainwash us. He wants us to believe that it's offensive to give him a rhadamanthine warning not to create a world sunk in the most abject superstition, fanaticism, and ignorance; that's boring; that's not cool. You know what I think of that, don't you? I think that last summer, I attempted what I knew would be a hopeless task. I tried to convince Budweiser that I can't, for the life of me, see why he wants to subvert time-tested societal norms. As I expected, Budweiser was totally unconvinced. Don't be intimidated by Budweiser's threat to perpetuate the nonsense known technically as the analytic/synthetic dichotomy. It may seem difficult at first to build an inclusive, nondiscriminatory movement for social and political change. It is. But Budweiser's surrogates don't want us to move as expeditiously as possible to exemplify the principles of honor, duty, loyalty, and courage. That'd be too much of a threat to colonialism, statism, and all of the other vapid things they worship. Clearly, they prefer stigmatizing any and all attempts to respond to Budweiser's assertions. All of this once again proves the old saying that Budweiser worships his own ignorance.
  8. I was so pleased by the response to my last letter that I decided to write another one. Don't worry; I have plenty of new stuff to say about Marshy Dearest and his collaborators. Whoa! Don't stampede for the exits! I promise I'll get to the main topic of this letter, Marshy Dearest's quarrelsome, heinous quips, in just a few sentences. I simply feel it's important first to provide some additional context by mentioning that Marshy Dearest all but forces his lieutenants to drive us into insolvency. Interestingly, his lieutenants don't much seem to mind being given such yawping orders. I guess it's hard to free flippant wretched-types from the chains they revere. A related observation is that what's scary is that Marshy Dearest has had some success at promoting, fostering, and instituting solipsism. Even worse, it seems likely that Marshy Dearest will put our liberties at risk by an unprofessional and smarmy rush to crush people to the earth and then claim the right to trample on them forever because they are prostrate before the year is over. Although things may seem dark now, Marshy Dearest can't prevent the sun from rising. He can't prevent me from writing that he is an opportunist. That is, he is an ideological chameleon without any real morality, without a soul. Marshy Dearest and I disagree about our civic duties. I aver that we must do our utmost to take a proactive, rather than a reactive, stance. Marshy Dearest, on the other hand, believes that Bulverism resonates with the body's natural alpha waves. Our top priority in the upcoming weeks must be to tell Marshy Dearest what we all think of him—and boy, do I have some choice words I'd like to use. Look, of course that's going to be tough. Anybody who tells you it's going to be easy or that one can wave a magic wand and make it happen hasn't been paying attention to how Marshy Dearest operates. Nevertheless, some people think it's a bit extreme of me to find the inner strength to address the continued social injustice shown by the most scornful kleptomaniacs I've ever seen—a bit over the top, perhaps. Well, what I ought to remind such people is that Marshy Dearest has indicated that if we don't let him install a puppet government that pledges allegiance to his selfish, nocent crime syndicate then he'll be forced to mortgage away our future. That's like putting rabid attack dogs in silk suits. In other words, Marshy Dearest has issued us a thinly veiled threat that's intended primarily to scare us away from the realization that he sometimes uses the word "uncontrovertibleness" when describing his doctrines. Beware! This is a buzzword designed for emotional response. I conclude this letter with an appropriate quote: "Marshy Dearest's insipience disgusts me." I believe we all know who said _that_, don't we?
  9. I wish I didn't have to write a letter like this one, but recent events leave me no choice. What follows is the story of how Marshy Dearest can be so rich in the rhetoric of democracy and yet so poor in its implementation. He seems to have a bitter ideological conflict with my statement that he doesn't believe in the right to free speech, except for people who agree with him. We can therefore extrapolate that if we let him sow the seeds of larrikinism we'll be reaping the crop for quite a long time. If Marshy Dearest were as bright as he thinks he is, he'd know that he has long been getting away with exploiting other cultures for self-entertainment. I urge all of my beautiful and loyal fans to walk with me side-by-side as we marsh up the steps of justice to right this unconscionable wrong and prove to the world that Marshy Dearest has a natural talent for complaining. He can find any aspect of life and whine about it for hours upon hours. The elasticity of Marshy Dearest's interpretation of the Bible shields him from having to take a stand for anything morally correct yet politically (spiritually?) unpopular. This implies that he's more than mealymouthed. Marshy Dearest is mega-mealymouthed. In fact, to understand just how mealymouthed he is, you first need to realize that Marshy Dearest has, on a number of occasions, expressed a desire to silence critical debate and squelch creative brainstorming. On all of these occasions I submitted to the advice of my friends, who assured me that the fallout from his spineless, complacent roorbacks has been an increasingly predatory environment of calculation, scheming, and pandering that will, by virtue of its omnipresence, kill the goose bearing the golden egg. Let me express that same thought in slightly different terms: Marshy Dearest has been feeding information from sources inside the government to organizations with particularly ugly agendas. How can he perpetrate such an outrage against public propriety and decency? All I can do now is give you a bare-bones answer and then let you dig into it yourself. To understand the basic answer you need to realize that whenever anyone states the obvious—that Marshy Dearest's communications are some of the most delirious, insidious, and pugnacious I've ever encountered—discussion naturally progresses towards the question, "Is Marshy Dearest a professional simpleton or merely a well-meaning amateur?" I'll tell you the answer in a moment. But first, let me just say that Marshy Dearest relies heavily on "useful idiots", that is, people who unwittingly do Marshy Dearest's dirty work for him. Without his swarms of useful idiots, Marshy Dearest would not have been able to conceal the fact that he wants nothing less than to ignite a maelstrom of Tartuffism. His apostles then wonder, "What's wrong with that?" Well, there's not much to be done with disreputable, malicious numskulls who can't figure out what's wrong with that, but the rest of us can plainly see that I have frequently criticized Marshy Dearest's unspoken plan to brandish the word "honorificabilitudinity" (as it is commonly spelled) to hoodwink people into believing that his way of life is correct and everyone else's isn't. He usually addresses my criticisms by accusing me of communism, neopaganism, child molestation, and halitosis. Marshy Dearest hopes that by delegitimizing me this way, no one will listen to me when I say that if Marshy Dearest had two brain cells to rub together, he'd realize that while we do nothing, those who cast dissent as treason and criticism as espionage are gloating and smirking. And they will keep on gloating and smirking until we kick butt and take names. If we fail in our task of delivering Marshy Dearest from his appalling ignorance, then he will move increasingly towards the establishment of a totalitarian Earth. I have no idea why he makes such a big fuss over obscurantism. There are far more pressing issues that present themselves and that should be discussed, debated, and solved—issues such as war, famine, poverty, and homelessness. There is also the lesser issue that I believe that the best way to overcome misunderstanding, prejudice, and hate is by means of reason, common sense, clear thinking, and goodwill. Marshy Dearest, in contrast, believes that public opinion is a reliable indicator of what's true and what isn't. The conclusion to draw from this conflict of views should be obvious: If I were to compile a list of Marshy Dearest's forays into espionage, sabotage, and subversion, it would fill an entire page and perhaps even run over onto the following one. Such a list would surely make every sane person who has passed the age of six realize that Marshy Dearest alleges that freedom must be abolished in order for people to be more secure and comfortable. Naturally, this is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Blindly following, never asking questions, Marshy Dearest's serfs incorporate Marshy Dearest's uninformed and anger-filled tirades as their own. It becomes impossible to change their views merely by explaining that Marshy Dearest doesn't want us to know about his plans to spread hatred, animosity, and divisiveness. Otherwise, we might do something about that. He gets so hot and bothered about every little thing someone says about him that I fully expect him to make a big deal out of nothing in the coming days. This brings me to my next criticism of Marshy Dearest: He recently claimed that the world can be happy only when his imperium is given full rein. I would have found this comment shocking had I not heard similar garbage from him a hundred times before. He keeps trying to spoon-feed us his pabulum. And if we don't remain eternally vigilant, he will unequivocally succeed. No one that I speak with or correspond with is happy about this situation. Of course, I don't speak or correspond with predatory ultracrepidarians, Marshy Dearest's cultists, or anyone else who fails to realize that our path is set. By this, I mean that in order to analyze Marshy Dearest's barbs in the manner of sociological studies of mass communication and persuasion, we must maintain the great principles of virtue, truth, right, and honor. I consider that requirement a small price to pay because Marshy Dearest looks primarily at a person's superficial qualities such as physiognomy and mannerisms. I, in contrast, consider how likely a person is to put Marshy Dearest's parviscient conclusions to the question. That's what's important to me. Either way, if he had his way, schools would teach students that the sun rises just for Marshy Dearest. This is not education but indoctrination. It prevents students from learning about how Marshy Dearest somehow manages to maintain a straight face when saying that he is God's representative on Earth. I am greatly grieved by this occurrence of falsehood and fantastic storytelling which is the resultant of layers of social dishevelment and disillusionment amongst the fine citizens of a once organized, motivated, and cognitively enlightened civilization. Let me close by reminding you that it's ludicrous to believe that law and order can be maintained by letting Marshy Dearest's groupies make bribery legal and part of business as usual.
  10. Thorn

    Donate to Eclipse

    Well, I just hucked 25 bucks at this. I might not post here much, but I use the filehost all the time because it's the easiest, fastest one I've ever seen.
  11. Duuuude, Magical Aeroplane the Acrobat! I remember renzo you studmuffin and I playing the HELL out of that game back in the day at his place.
  12. You are all wizards. Have this handy guide to improvised weapons as thanks.
  13. You're a bro among bros, Marshy Dearest. What time are you gonna be free next week? I'll finally be able to hang out with you and renzo you studmuffin. Oh sweet, R's filter is still going xD
  14. Thought you might want to know. first prize is a big gaming tower, whole thing is an Acer contest and personally I'm a big fan of their computers. If you're interested in joining up, check it out here: [http://tinyurl.com/asxnvdk](http://tinyurl.com/asxnvdk)
  15. Thorn

    New Site

    This looks really professional, almost weirdly so ![:P](http://www.touchofdeathforums.com/community/public/style_emoticons//tongue.png) I like it! I think this is my favorite setup since the black forum with the loud sound on the mainpage.
×
×
  • Create New...