FMW Draft 2010 Discussion Thread

Posts : 164 Rep : 0 Join date : 2010-05-19

Dunn wrote:

Cactus Sam wrote:: How much you wanna bet that all that's going through Dunns mind at the moment is a menage a trois with himself?

Big word, old friend.

Come baaaaack. =(

See the OOC for why i can't, the only reason i came back and looked was De mentioned you were back thought i'd see how everything was going.

Posts : 81 Rep : 0 Join date : 2010-05-17

Easty wrote:: If you will kindly refer to yourself to prior instances of my physical actualities, Mr Crysto, you will notice that I am the more dominant personailty when it comes to wrestling-related affairs. And matches with me are a relatively straightforward, minimalist affair. So you will unfortunately not have the chance to "punish", as you so incorrectly put it, Dunn.

That is of course unless the powers that be decide to place you into a match with the man whose dominant outwardly embodiment is - at for the time being - Matthew P. Dunn. Then you will have your time. I am merely hungry; he likes to play with his food.

You are hungry eh? My light is also hungry Dunnfake, I think it won't take me long you get my fill of you. I'd rather the true Matthew P. Dunn, but hell you'll have to do also...

Subject: Re: FMW Draft 2010 Discussion Thread Sat Jun 05, 2010 2:30 pm

True Light wrote:

Easty wrote:: If you will kindly refer to yourself to prior instances of my physical actualities, Mr Crysto, you will notice that I am the more dominant personailty when it comes to wrestling-related affairs. And matches with me are a relatively straightforward, minimalist affair. So you will unfortunately not have the chance to "punish", as you so incorrectly put it, Dunn.

That is of course unless the powers that be decide to place you into a match with the man whose dominant outwardly embodiment is - at for the time being - Matthew P. Dunn. Then you will have your time. I am merely hungry; he likes to play with his food.

You are hungry eh? My light is also hungry Dunnfake, I think it won't take me long you get my fill of you. I'd rather the true Matthew P. Dunn, but hell you'll have to do also...

May I remind you, without Darkness there can be no Light.

I validate you.

Subject: Re: FMW Draft 2010 Discussion Thread Sun Jun 06, 2010 6:59 am

Us? Darkness?

Heh.

I forget... don't be afraid of the Darkness, be afraid of the Shadow it hides.

Subject: Re: FMW Draft 2010 Discussion Thread Sun Jun 06, 2010 8:00 am

You try to hard.

Shadows cannot exist in darkness.

Subject: Re: FMW Draft 2010 Discussion Thread Sun Jun 06, 2010 8:42 am

Darkness is merely an absence of light, Mr Dunn. A shadow is darkness by another name only.

Subject: Re: FMW Draft 2010 Discussion Thread Sun Jun 06, 2010 9:19 am

Darkness however, cannot hide a shadow. That's just silly.

Subject: Re: FMW Draft 2010 Discussion Thread Sun Jun 06, 2010 9:55 am

If that is the case then where does your shadow go in the absence of light?

Subject: Re: FMW Draft 2010 Discussion Thread Sun Jun 06, 2010 9:59 am

It doesn't exist.

Subject: Re: FMW Draft 2010 Discussion Thread Sun Jun 06, 2010 10:15 am

I hate to prove you wrong, Good Sir, but... well... you're wrong.

Despite your shadow not being invisible to the naked eye, it is still 'there'. The human eye is merely too unresponsive to pick up on the slight alterations in the spectrum that define where your shadow is and where it isn't.

It does not, as you think, cease to be.

Have you acquired Pendulum's latest offering, sir?

Subject: Re: FMW Draft 2010 Discussion Thread Sun Jun 06, 2010 10:47 am

If shadows were actually real, and arguably a 'thing' as apposed to an absence of a thing, that'd be a very valid argument.

However, as the definition of Shadow is 'an area that is not or is only partially irradiated or illuminated because of the interception of radiation by an opaque object between the area and the source of radiation' and we take the source of radiation, for the sake of this discussion, to be the Sun, and thusly, light, shadow cannot possibly exist without light.

Allow me to draw you an annotated diagram.

(SUN)
\\\\\\\\\ (<That's light.)
\\\\\\\\\
\\\\\\\\\ o
\\\\\\\ /|\ (<- That's you.)
\\\\\\\ / \ __________
(That's your shadow. ^)

A crude drawing, but it stresses the point.

Now, get rid of the sun, and the light it casts.

"Well, damn, it sure is gosh darn dark!"
o (^ Your masterful summary of the hypothetical situation.)
/|\ (<- You again. In the dark. As per above.)
/ \
(Distinct lack of shadow, seeing as there's nothing there to cause it. ^)

Need I go on?

Unresponsive to slight alterations in the spectrum indeed. For that to be the case, there'd have to be at least some light.

Which, if we were talking about say, a dark night, yes. Ok.

But seeing as the discussion was metaphorical, the 'evil' I was refering to, would of course, but of a pure black no good evil black black dark black void black dark.

I feel I've said a few buzz words there.

And that sort of 'pure darkness' I was discussing, would have no light, and therefor, no shadows.

And this is why you'll never be me.

Subject: Re: FMW Draft 2010 Discussion Thread Sun Jun 06, 2010 11:56 am

However, for you hypothesis to be validated, you must have all but the darkest of darkness.

I believe the term you used is 'pure darkness'?

Yet, as we have shadow, so we have light. Pure darkness, one which does not allow such a thing as light to even exist, cannot be.

Without imperfections we have no concept of perfection.

Without impurities we have no concept of pure.

Therefore, should your 'pure darkness' be a metaphysical possibility, it has to be in a place and time where there is nothing else. And if that were the case, how would it be aware of its own existance?

Let's use you as an example. If you claim to be 'pure darkness', then how do you explain the rationality of your being in the same space and time as someone as, say, Drew Michaels?

How can you have motive, direction? Purity is impossible. If 'pure darkness' is all you are, then all you are to me is a force, a feeling, that lacks purpose.

I would suggest it being your move, Good Sir, but I'd rather refrain from the chess analogies. Suffice to say, however, that your crown is in a precarious position.

Subject: Re: FMW Draft 2010 Discussion Thread Sun Jun 06, 2010 12:23 pm

Easty wrote:: However, for you hypothesis to be validated, you must have all but the darkest of darkness.

I believe the term you used is 'pure darkness'?

Yet, as we have shadow, so we have light. Pure darkness, one which does not allow such a thing as light to even exist, cannot be.

Without imperfections we have no concept of perfection.

Without impurities we have no concept of pure.

Therefore, should your 'pure darkness' be a metaphysical possibility, it has to be in a place and time where there is nothing else. And if that were the case, how would it be aware of its own existance?

Let's use you as an example. If you claim to be 'pure darkness', then how do you explain the rationality of your being in the same space and time as someone as, say, Drew Michaels?

How can you have motive, direction? Purity is impossible. If 'pure darkness' is all you are, then all you are to me is a force, a feeling, that lacks purpose.

I would suggest it being your move, Good Sir, but I'd rather refrain from the chess analogies. Suffice to say, however, that your crown is in a precarious position.

Which wheels us right back round to the openning point of 'Without darkness, Light cannot exist.' Speaking metaphorically, of course. Without an opposite, there would be no motivation to do anything, nor any awareness.

However, throughout the history of mankind, even the most simple of men have understood duality.
Just to say that something is so dark that it consumes light, a black hole of morality if you will, does not say there there are not those of equal brightness.

I'll explain, using myself, Drew, and Seth as an example.

Seth, as you may know, I've taken a slight interest in. I've flat out told him the reasons why, and such. That's all history.

So,

You've got two monolithic archtypes in Drew and myself on either side of the field of morality.

+ o/ o \o-
+/| /|\ |\-
+/ \ _____________/ \____________/\-

As depicted.
In this very basic explaination, my interest in Seth, as an Agent of Chaos, is essentially a battle for the man's soul, conscience, however you want to put it. If I'm successful, from a metaphysical jargon loaded stand point, I could argue that Drew, as holistic as he is, is either A) not he claims to be, or B) that THE LORD is not all he is said to be.

If Drew's light couldn't 'protect' Seth from my darkness, then... Well, it's a small scale victory.

And that, in short, is how both extreme examples of Light and Dark exist in the same plane of existence, Sir Jack.

To gather everyone inbetween to a side. It's a concept as old as time, it's logical, so there is no real need to mess with the classics.

» FMW Fantasy Wrestling League 2010 DISCUSSION THREAD
» WWE Draft discussion
» DRAFT THREAD
» WFL 2011 DRAFT THREAD
» TNA Discussion Thread