Moderator: Vympel
Gangsta-speak ain't no dark humor, homes! Dark humor goin' a lil mo like this:Knife wrote:You don't understand the power of the dark humor. You must laugh at funny shit.
Meh, first distortion of a SW quote that came to my head. Besides, I'm so white, I still think of Scareface when someone say's 'gangster'.Gangsta-speak ain't no dark humor, homes! Dark humor goin' a lil mo like this:
You don't need to be white for that just from Chicago will suffice for that name to pop up when someone says "Gangster." Remember tis is the guy who got away with the Valentine's Day MassacreKnife wrote:Meh, first distortion of a SW quote that came to my head. Besides, I'm so white, I still think of Scareface when someone say's 'gangster'.Gangsta-speak ain't no dark humor, homes! Dark humor goin' a lil mo like this:
Chardoks interpertation was still funny.
What'sup homie.Pablo Sanchez wrote:Writing all of it Gangsta speak is a one-shot joke. Writing just one character's dialogue in ebonics--that's comedy.Kuja wrote:Eh, I think it would get old after a while.
Doesn't there have to be a Emperor Palpatine II for the use of the numeral "I"?Illuminatus Primus wrote:His Imperial Majesty, Emperor Palpatine I, of the Galactic Empire
*watches as Luke crashes all the World Devastators, annihilating the Imperial army on Mon Calamari* Forget a little something?After that, Jedi Master and Supreme Commander of the Imperial Armed Forces, Luke Skywalker, during Operation SHADOWHAND.
Silence it looks more majestic.Darth Garden Gnome wrote:Doesn't there have to be a Emperor Palpatine II for the use of the numeral "I"?Illuminatus Primus wrote:His Imperial Majesty, Emperor Palpatine I, of the Galactic Empire
Yeah, but when Leia and Han first arrive on Byss, Luke just looked and was truly cool. Badass.Darth Garden Gnome wrote:*watches as Luke crashes all the World Devastators, annihilating the Imperial army on Mon Calamari* Forget a little something?Illuminatus Primus wrote:After that, Jedi Master and Supreme Commander of the Imperial Armed Forces, Luke Skywalker, during Operation SHADOWHAND.
Spanky The Dolphin wrote:Last time I checked, Palpatine wasn't an ass-kissing poser...
I find this to be comical.Chardok wrote:C3po- did you hear that? They shot down the main reactor! We'll be destroyed for sure! This is madness!
R2- bleep bloop bleep squirt....
C3P0- What? R2 What kind of language is that?! I am not a "Homey"
R2- Bleep bloop bloop
C3P0- You...What is a "Fuck you"?
R2- Bleep bloop bloop raspberry
C3P0- You're the bitch.
R2- Bleep bloop
C3P0- No YOU are....
*Storm troopers storm in screaming ghetto slang*
UUH!! UUH! YEEAH! YEAAH! NIGGA GET SOME! UGGH! BITCH! YEEAH I POPPED DAT ASS! MUTHAFUCKA! Sheeit.
Darth Vader walks in to inspect the Scene, Colt 45 in hand.
"Yo, what up, Homies. Daaaaaamn, i'm Fuuuuuuuuuucked up...y'all niggas gotta try some o' this shit I gto from Jabbas the othah day. It's da shiznit!"
*Takes a swig from the 40*
"Yo, bring me dat ho leia! Ain't no bitch gettin outta MY hood without paying me my muthfuckin money."
Did you forget that Thrawn enslaved an entire planet of aliens and kept them in servitude to the Empire under the guise of helping them? How about his rather elegant execution of one of his crew for gross incompetence?Trytostaydead wrote:See.. I don't know whether or not Thrawn was actually a villain per se. He was most definately a conqueror.. warlord, what have you.. but he never did anything evil or bad for the enjoyment of it. I mean, would we consider Julius Casear or Alexander a villain?The_Lumberjack wrote:It's either Thrawn or the Emperor. The Emperor has the whole evil classically trained British bad guy thing going, and is sufficiently evil to merit a place in the Blofeld hall of fame, being in a similar vein. Thrawn because he is the only EU character from the books I have read (consisting of Jedi Academy lot, Thrawn trilogy, Darksaber, Shadows of the Empire and New Rebellion), who actually had some depth to him.
But then again, Tarkin, standing awaiting the destruction of the Rebellion, stiff upper lipped and arrogant to the last... hmmm...
I do enjoy the occasional bloodletting, yes. But in all seriousness.. what's the difference between Thrawn and someone like Caesar?Spanky The Dolphin wrote:If you couldn't tell that Thrawn was the villian, then you must either have mental problems or are such a military freak that things like setting and plot just go over your head...
Its called decimation which in latin means death of one in Ten. What made even worse was that those who didn't draw the short straws were the ones that had to cxarry out the exicutions and if they refused they would join the dead. It was a nasty punishment intended to ensure that no Roman Soldier ever broke ranks and run from battle. As a result Roman Legions would fight to the death because that was preferable to decimation.Trytostaydead wrote:As for execution for gross incompetence? I forget which legion or what this particular punishment is called.. but during the whole Spartacus incident when one particular legion didn't perform well against the slave army.. boy oh boy. Something like one in every ten legionnaire (I think.. maybe less or more) was called out and the non-selected comrades BEAT them to DEATH as a disciplinary warning.
First off, exactly which Caesar are you referring to? The word means "king", it isn't a name.Trytostaydead wrote:I do enjoy the occasional bloodletting, yes. But in all seriousness.. what's the difference between Thrawn and someone like Caesar?Spanky The Dolphin wrote:If you couldn't tell that Thrawn was the villian, then you must either have mental problems or are such a military freak that things like setting and plot just go over your head...
The Kernel pointed out slaves and executions. Hey, the Roman Empire was all about them slaves man. And they made people fight to the death for their own personal amusement.
As for execution for gross incompetence? I forget which legion or what this particular punishment is called.. but during the whole Spartacus incident when one particular legion didn't perform well against the slave army.. boy oh boy. Something like one in every ten legionnaire (I think.. maybe less or more) was called out and the non-selected comrades BEAT them to DEATH as a disciplinary warning.
Actually, no. When the Elected Roman Emperor Franz II crowned himself Austrian Emperor in 1804, he chose the regnal name "Franz I" for himself, despite the fact that there was no Franz II at the time. Likewise, when the D. Juan Carlos de Borbón became King of Spain in 1975, he chose the regnal name "Juan Carlos I" (as he is still reigning, there is obviously no Juan Carlos II).Darth Garden Gnome wrote:Doesn't there have to be a Emperor Palpatine II for the use of the numeral "I"?
The dux you are thinking of is Marcus Licinius Crassus, the richest man in Rome, who late became a member of the secret First Triumvirate with Caius Iulius Cæsar and Cnaeus Pompeius Magnus. Although it was his generalship that defeated Spartacus, the pompous Pompeius Magnus claimed credit for the victory. Consul with Pompeius Magnus in AC 55, Licinius Crassus subsequently attacked the Parthians, but he was annihilated at the Battle of Carrhæ in AC 53.Spanky The Dolphin wrote:As for execution for gross incompetence? I forget which legion or what this particular punishment is called.. but during the whole Spartacus incident when one particular legion didn't perform well against the slave army.. boy oh boy. Something like one in every ten legionnaire (I think.. maybe less or more) was called out and the non-selected comrades BEAT them to DEATH as a disciplinary warning.
Completely and wholly false, sir. Your ignorance of Roman politics and history is incredible. "Cæsar" is indeed a name; it is a cognomen, or familial nickname, belonging to a branch of gens Iulia, an ancient noble family which claimed descent from Iulus, a son of Æneas, himself said to have been a son of the goddess Venus. It certainly does not mean "king", as the family's most famous scion, Caius Iulius Cæsar (better known simply and somewhat inaccurately as Julius Caesar), became supreme ruler of the Roman Republic, and adamantly refuse kingship, saying on one occasion "Non sum rex sed Cæsar" ("I am not king, but Cæsar"). The name is believed to be derived from the noun cæsaries ("hair") or from the verb cædere ("to cut") by way of the phrase "a matre cæso" ("cut from his mother"), which some philologists believe to be a reference to a Cesarian section.The Kernel wrote:First off, exactly which Caesar are you referring to? The word means "king", it isn't a name.
The Kernel wrote:First off, exactly which Caesar are you referring to? The word means "king", it isn't a name.
I wholy appreciate the correction. I guess you learn something every day. Truthfully, my understanding of the name Ceasar came from a Western Civilization class from college in which we more or less glossed over the Roman Empire (a lot to cover for a semester). I have no trouble believing that the teacher of the class was wrong on several facts and I guess that this was one of them.Completely and wholly false, sir. Your ignorance of Roman politics and history is incredible. "Cæsar" is indeed a name; it is a cognomen, or familial nickname, belonging to a branch of gens Iulia, an ancient noble family which claimed descent from Iulus, a son of Æneas, himself said to have been a son of the goddess Venus. It certainly does not mean "king", as the family's most famous scion, Caius Iulius Cæsar (better known simply and somewhat inaccurately as Julius Caesar), became supreme ruler of the Roman Republic, and adamantly refuse kingship, saying on one occasion "Non sum rex sed Cæsar" ("I am not king, but Cæsar"). The name is believed to be derived from the noun cæsaries ("hair") or from the verb cædere ("to cut") by way of the phrase "a matre cæso" ("cut from his mother"), which some philologists believe to be a reference to a Cesarian section.
The wildly inaccurate claim that it means "king" must surely be derived from a grossly simplistic understanding of the nature of the Roman Empire. The first "emperors" -- commonly called Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius I, and Nero -- all descended (by birth or adoption) from Julius Caesar's branch of the gens Iulia and consequently all of them were legally named Cæsar. The first emperor after Nero also assumed the name, as it was permanently associated with the "position" of emperor. It subsequently became used as the designation of the "heir" to the emperor, and under Diocletianus's tetrarchy, referred to the two subemperors (the two full emperors were each titled "Augustus"). "Cæsar" in this sense does not translate to "king" at all, but "emperor", as demonstrated by the German Kaiser and the Russian czar, both of which are derived from "Cæsar".
Hence, the fact that your two-part claim that Cæsar is not a name and means "king" can be seen to be incorrect on both counts. When used alone as a name, "Cæsar" almost invariably refers to Julius Caesar (although Augustus is referred to as such in William Shakespeare's Antony and Cleopatra, and this usage is correct as his full name at the time was Caius Iulius Cæsar Octavianus).
PUBLIUS
