Monarchy Forum
Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 1 of 5      1   2   3   4   Next   »
AaronTraas

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 537
Reply with quote  #1 
I needed to learn a new programming language for an upcoming much more complicated project, so I thought I'd do something helpful and build a tool to help Azadi repeat himself more efficiently. 

Instead of the endless typing of the same things over and over he does, he can now just link to this in every post:

https://azadi-repeats.traas.org/

Then the members of this forum have but to click on the link, and they can see important facts that must surely be relevant to every discussion! 

I've only added a few so far. Everyone, feel free to add your own! They won't appear right away (I have a moderation queue to keep it from filling up with spam), but I'll approve any relevant quotes.

EDIT 2/29/2020 -- I'll be taking down the site in the next day or so. I'd say with our resident troll no longer being, well, resident, it no longer serves a purpose.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,547
Reply with quote  #2 
There are several different ways of trying to cope with the Azadian plague that has infested the forum for lo, these many moons. One is to ignore him, though unfortunately that's about as easy as ignoring a pneumatic drill outside your bedroom window at 4 a.m. Another is to argue with him, though everyone who tries that soon learns that it would be less painful, less tedious and more profitable to go find a brick wall and batter your head against it. And a third is to make fun of him. This is an excellent effort in that regard, and I would also like to commend Matthew's hilarious sequence of coats-of-arms on page 15 of the thread concerned with the G word.

Of course if Azadi were actually to make use of the software tool Aaron has so kindly provided, that would be perfect. He would feel that he has successfully mentioned something uninteresting and irrelevant for the 158th time, just in case we had all missed the previous 157. We, who unfortunately hadn't, would just not click the link, thus leaving our personal count where it was. Everybody would be happy!
Murtagon

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 237
Reply with quote  #3 
Great idea, Aaron!

But where is "I'm sick and tired of X"? That's an important omission. I would add it, but I'm not able to at the moment.

Edit: Done. I can't see it yet, though.
AaronTraas

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 537
Reply with quote  #4 
Murgaton, it's there now.

There's a moderation queue - I need to approve things that come through. As there are no accounts, because I knew no one would bother to sign up, I needed a way to keep unfiltered garbage from hitting the site.
AaronTraas

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 537
Reply with quote  #5 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
This is an excellent effort in that regard, and I would also like to commend Matthew's hilarious sequence of coats-of-arms on page 15 of the thread concerned with the G word.


What can I say - Matthew can draw, you have acerbic wit, and I can code. We need to use the talents we have for the greater good.
AaronTraas

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 537
Reply with quote  #6 
I added a new feature -- Azadi post generator. Takes 2-5 random quotes and strings them together. Most of the results are indistinguishable from a fair number of posts Azadi has made.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #7 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronTraas
I added a new feature -- Azadi post generator. Takes 2-5 random quotes and strings them together. Most of the results are indistinguishable from a fair number of posts Azadi has made.

Thank you Aaron, but you have omitted my claim to the Kurdish throne, the fact that I belong to a German noble house and my admiration of Putin.
I apologize for having repeated my opinions excessively on this forum. I have noticed that the forum is becoming increasingly hostile to me, and it's understandable, because I repeat my opinions excessively. I have done it because of pride. I have often repeated my opinions in order to avoid appearing to have lost a debate on this forum. I have also done it, because I wanted to refute slander against me. I have often been accused of Anglophobia and bigotry against Protestants. 
My quarrel with Wessexman has amplified the problem. I dislike Wessexman, because he appears to be very condescending to me. He usually refuses to try to understand my opinions. I repeated my opinions when debating with Wessexman, because I didn't want to appear to have lost the debate to Wessexman. Debating with Wessexman is similar to batting my head against a brick wall. I used to like Peter, despite usually disagreeing with him, because he often has admitted that my opinions are reasonable, despite disagreeing with them. Peter recently became hostile to me. It was very sad, but it was understandable, because I repeated my opinions excessively.
I have also repeated my opinions excessively, because I have tried to limit the Anglophile bias of this forum. I want this forum to be an international monarchist forum, rather than an Anglophile monarchist forum. The Anglophile bias of this forum became very strong, when Contra Terrentum EQR left this forum. I have tried to emulate Contra by struggling against the Anglophile bias of this forum.
I will likely become less active on this forum, because I have expressed my opinions sufficiently on this forum. I won't leave this forum, because I want to publish my alternate history story about the Russian Revolution and World War I on this forum.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,547
Reply with quote  #8 
If you become less active,you will be less complained about. If you want to publish your story, go ahead. People can read it or not as they choose, as opposed to you popping up on every thread and leaving them no choice, unless they abandon the forum altogether. Wessexman and I have had our differences, which is putting it mildly if you look back a few years. But we now get on quite amiably I feel, and I can't see that he has been unreasonable in his exchanges with you. In fact, he carried on talking with you after I had walked away in disgust. So perhaps you should have been kinder to him than me in your assessment, but no matter. I am sure everyone will be willing to let bygones be bygones and start treating you like a normal member of the forum, so long as you start behaving like a normal member of the forum.
MatthewJTaylor

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 277
Reply with quote  #9 
I for one am intruiged about the alternate history and hope to see it soon.
__________________
ceterum censeo caetum europaeum delendum esse
The Scottish Tory - https://sites.google.com/view/scottishtory
Scots for a French Royal Restoration - https://sites.google.com/view/sfrr
Murtagon

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 237
Reply with quote  #10 
Quote:
Originally Posted by azadi

Thank you Aaron, but you have omitted my claim to the Kurdish throne, the fact that I belong to a German noble house and my admiration of Putin.
And other stuff Azadi wrote


I would like to apologise to Azadi, if I have ever offended him.

To be honest, the buzz created by our resident Kurd did convince me to finally join the forum. So, thank you!

I think part of the problem comes from you being a, well, Liminal being (the forum software didn't allow me to link to TV Tropes and I'm very sad now). I mean that you are of both German and Kurdish descent and this may lead to some inner conflicts within yourself.

Regarding the forum being "biased" towards the British monarchy. The fact is that the very first threads appear to be now all in the UK and Commonwealth subforum. Another fact is that we all write in English - easily explicable, the creator of the Monarchy Forum is a (very brave) American of British extraction. I could go on here, but let us not forget that Queen Elizabeth II is practically the most popular monarch in the world. In other words, that was intentional, but it doesn't mean that other monarchies and nations may not be represented.

Out of curiosity, Azadi, could I possibly find your noble family on Wikipedia? Just asking and you don't need to give me your last name (Datenschutz is a big deal in Germany nowadays, after all).


Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,856
Reply with quote  #11 
I admit I'm an irascible fellow at times and not one to back down in debate, but that's just not true, and very obviously so. I most certainly do try to understand your opinions. I have gone out of my way to try to interpret your positions and claims and argue with you. It is you who have refused to debate properly with me. Debate doesn't mean just repeating your opinions and trying to shout down one's opponents, though it often ends up this way. It means giving logical arguments and responding to rational objections. You often don't do this, and yet don't wish to back down. That's not debate. I tried to get you to explain your claims about our moral responsibilities for the crimes of our ancestors. You didn't do this properly, but you couldn't back down so your started transparently spamming by repeating your claims again and again. This to me is far worse than your usual, relatively innocent repetitiveness. I'm happy to reconsider that should your behaviour change. Look, I know the lure of tenacity in discussion. It is one of my many failings. But when you do that by stamping your feet and just repeating yourself, you look silly and annoy people. I do apologise if I ever been over-harsh at anytime though. My irascibility is one of my failings too, though one of my virtues, if I do say so myself, is I don't bear grudges. I had thought on balance that you were a good addition to the forum, on balance, and a little amendment in your posting style would see me resume that opinion.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #12 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Murtagon


I would like to apologise to Azadi, if I have ever offended him.

To be honest, the buzz created by our resident Kurd did convince me to finally join the forum. So, thank you!

I think part of the problem comes from you being a, well, Liminal being (the forum software didn't allow me to link to TV Tropes and I'm very sad now). I mean that you are of both German and Kurdish descent and this may lead to some inner conflicts within yourself.

Regarding the forum being "biased" towards the British monarchy. The fact is that the very first threads appear to be now all in the UK and Commonwealth subforum. Another fact is that we all write in English - easily explicable, the creator of the Monarchy Forum is a (very brave) American of British extraction. I could go on here, but let us not forget that Queen Elizabeth II is practically the most popular monarch in the world. In other words, that was intentional, but it doesn't mean that other monarchies and nations may not be represented.

Out of curiosity, Azadi, could I possibly find your noble family on Wikipedia? Just asking and you don't need to give me your last name (Datenschutz is a big deal in Germany nowadays, after all).



You have never offended me.
I'm not opposed to the Anglophile bias of this forum, because I dislike the British monarchy. I like the British monarchy, despite not being an Anglophile, because I like the ancient traditions and the pageantry of the British monarchy and because the Windsors are descended from the Stuarts, who are one of my favourite European royal dynasties (the Romanovs are my favourite European royal dynasty). 
I'm opposed to the Anglophile bias of this forum, because the crimes of the British Empire rarely are condemned on this forum. 
You can't find my noble family on Wikipedia, unless I give you my last name, because I'm bearing the last name of my noble family. I have promised my mother to not give my last name to strangers on the Internet, because Datenschutz is indeed very important.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #13 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman
I admit I'm an irascible fellow at times and not one to back down in debate, but that's just not true, and very obviously so. I most certainly do try to understand your opinions. I have gone out of my way to try to interpret your positions and claims and argue with you. It is you who have refused to debate properly with me. Debate doesn't mean just repeating your opinions and trying to shout down one's opponents, though it often ends up this way. It means giving logical arguments and responding to rational objections. You often don't do this, and yet don't wish to back down. That's not debate. I tried to get you to explain your claims about our moral responsibilities for the crimes of our ancestors. You didn't do this properly, but you couldn't back down so your started transparently spamming by repeating your claims again and again. This to me is far worse than your usual, relatively innocent repetitiveness. I'm happy to reconsider that should your behaviour change. Look, I know the lure of tenacity in discussion. It is one of my many failings. But when you do that by stamping your feet and just repeating yourself, you look silly and annoy people. I do apologise if I ever been over-harsh at anytime though. My irascibility is one of my failings too, though one of my virtues, if I do say so myself, is I don't bear grudges. I had thought on balance that you were a good addition to the forum, on balance, and a little amendment in your posting style would see me resume that opinion.

I have repeated my claims, because you claimed that my stance on the moral responsibility of Britain for the crimes of the British Empire is my personal obsession, despite politicians often apologizing for the past crimes of their country. You claim that your stance on the moral responsibility of Britain for the crimes of the British Empire is objectively right. I won't accept that claim. I sincerely believe that the British state is responsible for the crimes of the British Empire, and you sincerely disagree. I proposed that we agree to disagree on this matter. I accepted that I'm unable to change your mind on this matter, but you wouldn't accept my refusal to change my mind on this matter.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,856
Reply with quote  #14 
Quote:
Originally Posted by azadi

I have repeated my claims, because you claimed that my stance on the moral responsibility of Britain for the crimes of the British Empire is my personal obsession, despite politicians often apologizing for the past crimes of their country. You claim that your stance on the moral responsibility of Britain for the crimes of the British Empire is objectively right. I won't accept that claim. I sincerely believe that the British state is responsible for the crimes of the British Empire, and you sincerely disagree. I proposed that we agree to disagree on this matter. I accepted that I'm unable to change your mind on this matter, but you wouldn't accept my refusal to change my mind on this matter.


But I asked you to explain and defend your claim about the British state being responsible for the crimes of the past. This is a claim, and one that would seem to need support. After all, the British state is made up of members alive today, none of whom was alive at the times of the events being discussed. Generally, moral culpability requires consciousness, deliberate agency, does it not? I'm willing to accept you sincerely believe what you do, but not that these aren't questions you need to answer to give a full explanation of your position.

Part of the reason I ask for explanation is that, whilst sceptical of the central contention, I nonetheless thing that parts might be salvageable. I certainly agree with Peter's comment about what I referred to as the taking of metaphorical responsibility for one's countries bad points as well as good.

It is true that some politicians have apologised for crimes committed by their nations. Sometimes these are within living memory, but sometimes they are not. I have long thought the latter at least were silly, long before I knew you. Sometimes they may be harmless, and sometimes they might, as in Germany's case,* the crimes of the nation might so be large that coming to terms with your national identity and loyalty means coming to terms with these. But I don't think think that politicians doing so shows it is necessary or even possible to truly take responsibility for and apologise the crimes of those long dead. I will concede that it does, given there are a number of examples of these apologies, there is a surface plausibility here prior to examining what is really involved in the claims. But such plausibility can easily fall apart upon closer inspection, so I am interested in inspecting what is really involved.

* The apology here was only a dozen years later.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #15 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman


But I asked you to explain and defend your claim about the British state being responsible for the crimes of the past. This is a claim, and one that would seem to need support. After all, the British state is made up of members alive today, none of whom was alive at the times of the events being discussed. Generally, moral culpability requires consciousness, deliberate agency, does it not? I'm willing to accept you sincerely believe what you do, but not that these aren't questions you need to answer to give a full explanation of your position.

Part of the reason I ask for explanation is that, whilst sceptical of the central contention, I nonetheless thing that parts might be salvageable. I certainly agree with Peter's comment about what I referred to as the taking of metaphorical responsibility for one's countries bad points as well as good.

It is true that some politicians have apologised for crimes committed by their nations. Sometimes these are within living memory, but sometimes they are not. I have long thought the latter at least were silly, long before I knew you. Sometimes they may be harmless, and sometimes they might, as in Germany's case,* the crimes of the nation might so be large that coming to terms with your national identity and loyalty means coming to terms with these. But I don't think think that politicians doing so shows it is necessary or even possible to truly take responsibility for and apologise the crimes of those long dead. I will concede that it does, given there are a number of examples of these apologies, there is a surface plausibility here prior to examining what is really involved in the claims. But such plausibility can easily fall apart upon closer inspection, so I am interested in inspecting what is really involved.

* The apology here was only a dozen years later.

Individual Britons aren't responsible for the crimes of the British Empire, despite the British state is responsible for the crimes of the British Empire.
I don't claim that the British state is responsible for the crimes of the British Empire, because I'm biased against Britain. I have apologized for the Armenian Genocide on this forum, because the Kurds participated in the Armenian Genocide. I was born in 1993. I'm not morally responsible for the Armenian Genocide as an individual, but my people is morally responsible for the Armenian Genocide.
I agree with the author of this article on the moral responsibility of a nation for its past crimes:
https://www.dw.com/en/opinion-germanys-historical-obligation-continues/a-47248363



Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.