How come....

[lurkers]

How come Banff, Great Lakes, and Army cant have tournaments like the legends server does?

[Ri'Orius]

It's because Bills doesn't love us :(

Seriously, it's because Seed is more willing to go out of his way to be a nice guy.

Oh, by the way, Legends doesn't exist.

[lurkers]

what do you mean it dosent exist??

It's link is right here
http://www.digisonline.com/tactics/play/

[Ri'Orius]

SHHHHH!

What are you, crazy? Bringing that link in here?


It DOESN'T EXIST, got it? *wink wink*?

[SilverEcho]

Delte this post.

[lurkers]

Why? why dont you want it to exist?

EDIT: I can't spell!

[Rabi en Rose]

Why?



Despite your username, you have apparently not lurked enough.

[lurkers]

That doesnt give me much info

[Serge]

What is this legends? I nor no one else here has ever heard of it. It must not exist, that link you posted must be a dead link b/c it can't lead to a place that doesn't exist. WINK WINK

[lurkers]

OMG!!

[Northwind]

Lurkers,

To what strange never-never land are you referring? Surely there does not exist a site that is in competition with this site. How strange that you keep referring to it. It is double-plus good that such a site does not exist.

Northwind (sincerely hoping that Lurkers has read 1984).

[lurkers]

what is 1984 and what is it?

[Rabi en Rose]

Originally posted by lurkers
what is 1984 and what is it?

Soon, you will undergo re-education, and you will know.

BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU!!!!
BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU!!!!
BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU!!!!
BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU!!!!

[Northwind]

Now it is my turn to say OMG!

It is a book by George Orwell. Look it up and you will know why Legends does not exist. (And has never existed!)

[Rabi en Rose]

Originally posted by Northwind
Now it is my turn to say OMG!

It is a book by George Orwell. Look it up and you will know why Legends does not exist. (And has never existed!)
You may think you are clever, but they can see through your words.

[Northwind]

:eek:

[lurkers]

i dont get it. why do people keep saying legends doesnt exist? do they not like each othe or something?

[lurkers]

hello, answer!?:mad:

[thrdflrmshr]

How can one love what is not there?

Also, if you like Orwell, read Alduous Huxley's Brave New World. It'll open some eyes up.

[SilverEcho]

Legends does not exist! And will never exist!!!

[Ri'Orius]

Originally posted by thrdflrmshr
Also, if you like Orwell, read Alduous Huxley's Brave New World. It'll open some eyes up.

Fiction should never open your eyes. Just because George Orwell can come up with a fictional Communist society that is corrupt does not mean that real Communist societies will be corrupt, for example. According to the basic foundations of logic and science, you can only back up an idea with facts.

Unforutnately, the masses tend to be more moved by fiction than fact...

By the way, here's (http://www.huxley.net/bnw/one.html) what he's talking about. I've only read the beginning, though; never got around to the end... Interesting idea, but again, it is merely fiction.

[xyxaxyz2]

Just because George Orwell can come up with a fictional Communist society that is corrupt does not mean that real Communist societies will be corrupt, for example.

Orwell's point is that the communist (and capitalist) societies of his time were corrupt- and fiction is a means of doing that.

[SilverEcho]

???

[Ri'Orius]

Originally posted by xyxaxyz2
Orwell's point is that the communist (and capitalist) societies of his time were corrupt- and fiction is a means of doing that.

If you want to comment about the real world, cite examples from it. It's the only logically valid way to do it.

Bring up specific instances of corruption in the real world--that would show corruption. But writing a fictional novel about corrupt pigs? That doesn't show anything about the real world. And it's not even the best way to get across his personal opinion--an essay would be much clearer and much less likely to be misinterpreted. Plus, of course, in an essay one can more fluidly incorporate one's reasons for having arrived at said opinion.

[SilverEcho]

... I stilll dont get it.

[xyxaxyz2]

If you want to comment about the real world, cite examples from it. It's the only logically valid way to do it.

People aren't logical. No one is logical. It isn't human nature to be logical.

Essays and arguments have their purposes. But so does satirical fiction. What satire does best is expose illogical arguments. Since humans are not logical creatures, our arguments tend to get mixed up with emotion, causing illogic. Satire brings these illogical aspects to light by exaggerating them.

If you're some leftist in Orwell's time who's worked for years critisizing capitalistic society, it might not be easy to see the danger of the Soviet Union. The emotional attachment to your fight will likely dampen the effect anything negative the USSR does will have on you.

What we see from both of Orwell's books is that the Communists have become indistinguishable from the Capitalists. The Western leftists are unwilling to critisize the Soviet communists only because their fight, for many of them, has become more important than what they are fighting for. And fiction is much more effective at weakening these emotional ties because it deals with emotion in a way no essay ever will.

I think my God unit (http://www.tacticsarena.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=953&highlight=satire) was a lot more effective than all the time I spend arguing with everyone on the power of gold units all those weeks ago.

[Ri'Orius]

Right, but the only way in which fiction can alter things is by altering emotions, which, as you pointed out, only get in the way of logic. Yes, a leftist might, due to their emotions, be unable to see the flaws in Communism. But to rectify that with different emotions solves only the symptoms, not the root of the cause: the leftist is still clouded by emotions, he simply is clouded by different ones.

That's why, whenever possible, I do what I can to preach logic and denounce literature and, through it, emotion. As you said, emotions cloud things up and get in the way of solid logic. Some people's way of dealing with this is, like Orwell, to just get more emotions in the way to drive the still-illogical mind to a more logical point. I argue that it is wiser to instead try to purge the mind of emotions and encourage logic over emotions.