Thread #2961

please. could this all just stop.

>>2983

>>2983
Only if you're Olivia

>>2985
Sadly not. So you're saying the only thing we can do is perpetuate it...?

>>2986
Only the Queen has the right to order boards started and stopped. Without her guidance we must soldier on.

>>2987
why does the board have to be stopped? maybe he/she means just the raking up things from the past thing, or the cracky idolisation thing, or some other thing

>>2988
That's what I meant. We lack the perspective only she could provide. Because we don't fully understand her wishes all we can do is remain coherent enough to be able to respond when she does answer. That means keeping up the boards and a culture as well as possible.

>>2989
that doesn't mean others arent tired of seeing "something"

>>2990
What do you mean?

>>2991
this person asked "can this please stop" or something like that, it isn't know if he/she's speaking for himself or for cracky, maybe she's just tired of whatever she didn't specify

>>2992
go on

>>2993
i don't know anything more, i can't even find much to speculate on, i'm not this person

>>2994
Obviously OP could have meant any number of things. More to the point Olivia could have meant various things. There's no point in speculating about either but only Olivia's desires are relevant.

>>2995
wait a sec, wasn't this image posted because somewhere in it olivia says something about her desires about boards and stalking or what was it?

>>2996
I'm sorry, I said "OP" but I meant the anon who said "please. could this all just stop." as a reply
I'm OP and I posted it because it helps us get a better grasp of the avatar's desires even if it doesn't stand as ful instruction.

>>2997
>"the avatar"
so you're one of those religious people, can you expand a little on how you see that? Is olivia just a vessel for cracky, and could cracky have appeared in anyone? Would you have liked if cracky had appeared in you?
fuck why can't i find a decent 3k get picture

>>2998
yup: I'm a real nutter from your perspective.
I believe a supernatural entity blessed Olivia with her presence. This made her the entity, which I'll the sky queen... the entity's avatar. Olivia is a vessel but not JUST a vessel. It took someone really amazingly special to be worthy and capable of the role.

>>2999
were you religious before this, or at some point in your life?
what do you think this entity is trying to achieve by making a cracky?
is the role of this entity now complete?
what elements from traditional religions does the skyqueen implement? Need for attention / worship / converting others? Forcing of morals on believers? Sacrifices? Afterlife? Is it purely personal or is there a communal aspect? Would it bother you, or cracky, or the entity if this whole thing quickly faded out and was forgotten?

>>3001
Yes, I was once a Christian, then athiest when I learned how Christianity actually ws used and spread.
The sky queen was answering the prayer young olivia once made, to be special and to help people. She's also helping humanity through Olivia's pictures. The first work is complete the second will be ongoing as long as people exist.
I don't believe the sky queen needs or wants belief forced on anyone, nor will she reward such things. In fact I don't believe she will offer any further reward to anyone except the benefits of the avatar's work. Sacrifices may be necessary for each person to fully benefit and the need of such will be communicated to each person who needs to make a sacrifice. Those people know. I don't think it's possible to permanently resist the sky queen's messages and I don't think it's beneficial to try. No afterlife in the sense of something supernatural or granted beyond this universe.
It's personal but I would really enjoy and be enlightened by having a community of like-minded people to speak with.

>>3002
I think that, rather than soliciting these people to dribble their silly vain pseudo-religious nonsense out over this board, a more efficient and accurate way of forming a judgment of their moral and intellectual character is to consider: why are they all suddenly here on this board anyway?
I have never noticed any of this "avatar" / "vessel" crap being posted on Ely's board ever before in its three- or is it four-year history until now. Clearly, these guys are boardless now that their "temple" has vanished up its own repetitious asshole so. like the alien horde in "Independence Day", they've swarmed in here - well, "swarm" is surely the wrong term as there are, at most, about four of them - and decided to suck its small resources of space and attention dry before moving on to the next board, on the rather unlikely assumption that there will be one to move on to.
I find this offensive not because I happen personally to dislike these people and find them intolerably vain and stupid but rather for more objective reasons. This board was always, throughout its short few years of history, a successor to Crackyhouse. Almost all the the people who have posted here were people who posted at Crackyhouse and, as I have already pointed out, decidedly not members of the pseudo-religious Bounceme crowd. It is copiously documented how much hatred and contempt the Bounceme "avatar"- and "vessel"-spewers had for Jeff and all the users of Crackyhouse, which was repeatedly and vehemently described on .71 as a "shithole", "cancer", "blasphemy" etc.
It is indicative of these people's character, I think, that they now have no compunction or hesitation about using the successor board to the "cancerous shithole" as a forum for their vain narcissistic burblings. What was "poison" to them when they had a board has become "meat" to them now they don't.
Locusts and hyenas, Such is and has been shown to be their character regardless of how much water their crappy little "religion" holds.

>>3003
>this board should only be used for things that please me for I am the all knowing arbiter

>>3003
There's no reason at all to use ole feuds as support for denying certain kinds of Cracky related conversation -- unless one's true intent is to

>>3005
create discord. Furthermore your repeated attempts to lums all Cracky worshipers into one highly limited stereotype must sound shallow even to you. How many times have you used the word "they" in your rant? Not once is it appropriate. Cracky worshipers lack sufficient agreement on doctrine to even be called the same sect of, let's call it DevDevism. You'll be doing yourself a favor to release your hatred -- it's a sword with a poisoned hilt.

>>3006
Invasion and occupation under the thin disguise of a brotherly embrace.
Just ask yourselves the simple question: how has the nature of this board and the posts on it altered since Bounceme went down? If you were always so interested in "conversation" with the people who used to use Crackyhouse between 2007 and 2012 and the people who have been using this board since 2012, how come we never saw hide nor hair of you during all those years, except when you made abusive raids on Crackyhouse? And how come we are suddenly seeing so MUCH of you now?

>>3008
The nature of the board hasn't changed -- I always found it sufficiently welcoming to discuss Cracky in whatever way I found helpful. Your implication is that my discussion here of Cracky as a religion are some deliberate slight against you or others here. I won't further dignify that charge. As for raids or abuse I for one never participated in such nor would I.

>>3009
A concrete proposal then:
Scroll back back through the two years of this board and find say, ten threads out of the couple of hundred that have run on it that evoke ideas like "avatar" and "supernatural entity".
I'll bet you can't.

>>3010
What would it prove if I could? What would it prove if I couldn't?

>>3011
If you could, it would prove your contention that "the nature of the board hasn't changed" since Bounceme went down (inb4 "It wasn't me who posted that, nananaNAAnah). If you couldn't - and you clearly can't, or you would have - it would prove that you are swarming, with your "mystical avatar" bullshit, onto a board with a basically different culture and trying to make it YOUR pissing ground.

>>3012
The nature of the board isn't the content of its posts but the character of its posters.

>>3013
which can surely only possibly manifest itself in the content of what is posted by them - or does your "mysticism" afford you some insight into what people ARE that bears no relation to what they DO (I'm not a big Wittgensteinian, but if ever the "private language argument" applied, it's here).

>>3014
I refer you back to my point about all churchgoers no being only god drones and all investors in an exchange not being scrooges.

>>3015
I refer you back to the challenge I made to you a few posts back, asshole - and which you have been frantically running from ever since

>>3016
The challenge would prove nothing. Explain what it will mean. Explain how discussing Cracky in religious terms or not doing so proves evil intent

>>3017
The challenge would prove everything. And you are just not addressing it by deliberately drifting off again into vague unproveable realms of "evil intent" or "good intent". Unlike you, I do not claim to be able to see into the hidden souls of posters and divine their "intent". I only see what they post. And until a few weeks ago what I saw on this website was often light-hearted, often polemical posting about various human beings, NOT about quasi-divine entities and their supernatural missions etc etc. If you scroll back you will see nothing different from this - unless you are even madder than I believe you to be.

>>3018
Nice straw man, I'm sure you'll burt it down with joy and vigor. The point you're deliberately missing is that talking about the sky queen isn't in itself a bad or malicious act. To say "see? you're suddenly doing this therefore you're acting maliciously" is to beg the question tht it is malicious.

>>3019
You really have the gall to evoke the phrase "straw man" in the very act of doing what you are doing right now - i.e. persisting in avoiding the question I put to you and trying to drag the discussion off into regions of claims I never made? Let me try ONCE AGAIN to force you to measure your claims against DOCUMENTARY FACT: can you find any post of mine in this thread where I say that my problem with you people is that you are "acting maliciously" in swarming in here now that your "temple" has collapsed? My problem with you isn't that you are "acting maliciously" by doing it. My problem with you is just that XOU ARE DOING IT. I can well believe that you "mean well" in starting to stuff this board with the same sort of thing as you stuffed .71 with. But the road to hell - or in this case extreme tedium - is often paved with good intentions.
I think you know this, and know that your "but we might mean well by it" argument has no real relevamce here, and know also that the basic and most important issue is; HAS the nature of the board changed or not? So you are desperately trying to avoid actually TESTING OUT whether it has or not by looking at how many earlier posts on it were "pseudo-religious" (next to none; I checked, since you won't).

Here are ten comments in that context. They're spread out over time.
>>258 →
>>882 →
>>919 →
>>1051 →
>>1030 →
>>1335 →
>>1730 →
>>1715 →
>>1803 →
>>1886 →

bonus: six year old rant by you on the same subject:
>>738 →

Pretty much since this board was made people have been praising the Sky Queen and you've been complaining about it.

>>3021
Sorry mate, but if this is your best attempt I think that the "quod erat demonstrandum" quite resoundingly goes to me here. After finding two or three actual threads you clearly got desperate and started picking out SINGLE POSTS that consisted in the repetition of some ancient bit of Crackypasta. The last six or seven "threads" you link to consist of two or three posts at most and you really are reaching in most of them and interpreting obviously ironically-intended off-the-cuff remarks about "intervening in the Ukraine" as bona fide full-blown "Cracky worship".
Accept it. This isn't your fucking "temple" and never was.
Or don't. There was never any point in trying to reason with you narcissistic fools anyway

>>3022
It's not my best attempt and this argument isn't worth my best -- As usual you're not even wrong.

>>3022
I made that Ukraine post and the intent behind it was every bit as religious as my recent posts -- Get it through your skull: the only thing I've been doing differently sinve .71 died is posting slightly more frequently about the same things in the same context and the only person who has a problem with that is you.

>>3025
Oh well that REALLY clears things up, then. Your response to my challenge to find ten posts on this board that feature this pseudo-religious nonsense - sorry what am i saying, ten THREADS (your ridiculous attempt to confound a post and a thread nearly paid off there) - was to dig up ten minuscule good-as-no-reply "threads" OF YOUR OWN and say: "Look! There is a precedent fro my bullshit".
Your "Ukraine" thread consisted of you posting a sentiment so infantile and stupid that I took it for a joke and one guy briefly laughing at you (lol politics).
Please, just go away.

I never agreed to find ten threads and I never claimed ten threads on the subject exist. The challenge wasn't ever meaningful. The point I made by posting those commends is that kind of thing has been posted here for a long time. How laughable you find them is irrelevant. Your claim is that this kind of thing is new and I disproved that.

>>3027
Yes, idiot.
that kind of thing has been posted here for a long time
As you just demonstrated . BY YOU!
Just die

>>3028
>I'm losing an argument -- better turn hostile to draw attention away from it

>>3029
"Turn hostile"?
My God, you really ARE a moron.
I've been calling you an idiot and a fool ever since I started posting in this thread.
And I honestly don't think I have ever WON an argument so resoundingly on this board as I have won this one
You did indeed never agree to finding ten threads here that were full of your bullshit. Because you knew right from the start that you couldnt

>>3030
So you've been arguing with the intent,

>>3031
to refute any claim, not to support your own but to what? Just spout shit? Congratulations, you've proven adapt at shit spouting.

>>3021
this board only started in december 2012. Date format is yyyy/mm/dd.
>>3003
i don't really see the problem, before you complained all the cracky people could do is regurgitate the same old stuff and pictures, now some guy(s) has this religion thing where he can create new content from just his imagination and it's not good either. He doesn't seem to be spamming the board, if you don't want to read his writings you can stick to the dolly threads . I don't see much point in perpetuating an us vs them thing with this/crackyhouse and .71, half of the people probably post on both boards. Lumping everyone who's really into cracky automatically in the same bucket as those that hate crackyhouse and this site seems like a generalisation.
The breaking of .71 indeed seems to correlate with a slight increase in posting here, but i guess that's to be expected. But tbh i kinda like it, the board is more active now than most times before and you can engage these new person/people in whatever way they want and quickly receive replies. I'm not sure if you'll be able to discuss foucault with them but you can try if you desire. You can shape the contents of the board just as well as them

>>2992
I wrote the "please. could this all just stop." and really what I was asking whether this could all stop. Also I find the lack of a question mark significant.

>>3034
"this"
that's still just as vague as ever

>>3035
>vague as ever
yeah, whatcha gonna do.

>>3036
categorise as "communication problems encountered, message not understood, message discarded."

>>3037
too bad. it's impossible to move forward without the "avatar's voice". but we can go on forever

>>3038
i have no idea what you're trying to say
>>3036
why don't you just say wether you're talking about old cracky shit, cracky in general, this board, or whatever

>>3039
communication is impossible. the veil between the worlds is too strong.

>>3040
you're another one of those .71 refugees religious nutpeople?

>>3041
probably a nutperson, not the rest

>>3042
why do you talk about avatars and veils then?

>>3043
I just enjoy appropriating that sort of language, whatever it is supposed to be for

>>3044
I'll translate that for you, since the guy who wrote it won't:

"I am someone with a mental age of about 12 who likes to sound deep and arcane on image boards but hasn't got the education or imagination to cobble together something "arcane-sounding" myself. So I steal stuff that Schwill already stole six years ago from some jumbled, shallow Internet account of serious religious texts and sit here smirking and giggling to myself about what a clever little fellow I am"