Off-Topic Thread vol. 2

Except, again, no. I didn’t call into question that Amarr adheres to it. I called into the question the veracity of the ‘covenant’ itself. Whether or not it actually exists, or if it’s just a collective opinion held by the duped masses.

So, yeah, you’ve consistently argued against something other than what was being said.

Not in the least; it was my initial position that you were arguing against

That’s not opinion Arrendis, it’s law.

For all the reasons I subsequently expanded on.

Except, again, as I said then: she’d need to take into consideration that that statement’s coming from you. Which means she’d need to have to give weight to your opinion of whether or not her actions are ‘correct’ or ‘heresy’. And honestly, after watching you try to argue tangential and unrelated issues all through this discussion, it’s pretty clear that she should always take anything you say as suspect, and get a second opinion from someone more honest… like Chakaid, maybe.

It was cited quite clearly, unless you’re suggesting I devised the seal.

And frankly

seem very much to be anything that does not involve accepting your assertion that everything pertaining to Imperial legal system is a shared delusion.

No, just the ‘word of god’ that it’s based on.

Really? Let’s look!

Hmm. Nope. ONE SENTENCE ABOVE what I quoted in my initial response doesn’t say anything about whether or not that’s before or after liminality. Huh.

Succinctly put, and to any who wish to understand either the Amarr or your servant; a pertinent truth.

1 Like

I don’t think rejecting all the admirable aspects of Dread Elkin as un-Amarrian is the argument you think it is. One of the greater failings of such attempts at complete erasure and detachment of those who buck the cult lies in how that describes the Amarr more than the one who left. Although that said, who am I to keep you lot from continuously self-sabotaging in that way.

Keep driving away your greatest assets, and keep alienating them. I’m sure that’ll work out well for you all.

4 Likes

It is possible, probable even, that she has admirable traits that for myself and most of the faithful are wholly eclipsed by her descent into heresy.

The cardinal virtues of Holy Amarr as I learned them as a child; are wisdom, righteousness, forbearance, and temperance.

Whatever asset you believe we forfeited, there is little quintessentially Amarr about an imprudent, vacillating former noble– especially one more apt even before her fall, to make excuses for her duty than embrace it.

4 Likes

It’s nothing but good PR if people are calling me un-Amarrian.

And honestly, I certainly don’t object to the sentiment.

I don’t uderstand this ‘un-Amarrian’ thing.
I’d prefer using label as ‘traitor’, it’s more describing and rather objective while ‘un-Amarrianity’ thing looks for me quite subjective and not really well defined, at least to my knowledge.

You prefer to use that word for everyone and everything.
Called you out on your bullcrap - Traitor
Looked at you funny - Traitor
Woke up at 10 instead of 6 - Traitor

You’ve used it so much, it’s lost meaning.

3 Likes

Talks to someone she doesn’t like: Traitor

1 Like

Just to check, paleocryptoxenocyberarchaeology is a word, right ?

The study of ancient, possibly legendary, foreign cybernetic and AI devices, yes ?

Are you arguing it is inaccurate in this case?

It’s probably why you made such a respectable rival, pre-Minmatarsia, of course. I can’t stomach chatting with 90% of Amarrians in local post-conflict, you were different even back then.

2 Likes

If it isn’t, it is now and you could claim to be New Eden’s greatest scholar in the field.

That was rather petty and unwise.
When I use word ‘traitor’ I use it against someone who has committed actual crime of treason.
While what you are using and considering under this word (like imagining someone might call other traitor for being funny) means you need either to check your dictionary or ask for psychiatrist help.

And for you to not starting another rant, I’ll state it here clearly that treason is a rather objective and verifiable fact, and not what you imagine or consider or stretch or looking funny.

In the regard of your answer, I could make a similar proposition that “you have used word ‘YOU’ so much, it lost its meaning, it really seems you’ve meant yourself rather the person you were addressing to!”

I already said it wasn’t my field of expertise. Doing what you say would be a serious breach of professional standards.

Fortunately, no-one takes what you say seriously.

2 Likes