Shuma-Gorath Worship/Respect Thread

Listen well all ye mortals! When Shuma-Gorath doth rule reality, my first act shall be to bury all those who oppose me alive! Their dirt-filled mouths shall scream forever in hideous agony - - Aye, even after their deaths - - because not even their friends shall mourn their passing! The memory of their lives and ways shall vanish from the mind of man! The worship of evil shall supplant all other religion! The people shall flock to ME! Before man walked the earth, I ruled - - But I did tire, and I did sleep! Now I have returned, and so shall ALL the old customs! Earth shall be but the initial step in my conquest of the cosmos!The very stars themselves work hand in hand with Shuma-Gorath - - I am He who sleeps but shall awake.

Worship and respect my name in this thread and you shall be granted a quick and painless death or perhaps be spared and made a servant when I rule the universe.

Nice username.

Very subtle.

I have a sense of deja vu

I have a go kicking and screaming policy so your gonna have to bury me alive I'm afraid.

Didn't you do this before?

He's inspired a tentacle fetish in pubescent boys all across the world.

@Decoy Elite said:

Didn't you do this before?

Nay - - That was but an 'Ask Me' thread.

@Shuma-Gorath said:

@Decoy Elite said:

Didn't you do this before?

Nay - - That was but an 'Ask Me' thread.

Hurm.

I for one, welcome our new overlord.

@Shuma-Gorath:

NO. BOW BEFORE THE AWESOME MIGHT OF CTHULHU. IÄ!

@~Cthulhu~ said:

@Shuma-Gorath:

NO. BOW BEFORE THE AWESOME MIGHT OF CTHULHU. IÄ!

You are both manifestations of one milquetoast's fear of seafood and vaginas. Shuma is even more pitiful as it is a knock-off of the original.

The amount of mystic energy you possess grants you my respect, creature of chaos!

@kuonphobos said:

Shuma is even more pitiful as it is a knock-off of the original.

His name was derived from that of the Outer Goddess, Shub-Niggurath.

His appearance was quite possibly shaped after the eldritch mountain god, Cyaegha, who dwells beneath the Dark Hill of Germany.

Your assumption that every Old One is a model after 'Cthulhu', a mere representative of the Great Old Ones themselves, is faulty and a pitiful testament to your shallow frame of perception.

@Azathoth_The_Dread_Sleeper said:

@kuonphobos said:

Shuma is even more pitiful as it is a knock-off of the original.

His name was derived from that of the Outer Goddess, Shub-Niggurath.

His appearance was quite possibly shaped after the eldritch mountain god, Cyaegha, who dwells beneath the Dark Hill of Germany.

Your assumption that every Old One is a model after 'Cthulhu', a mere representative of the Great Old Ones themselves, is faulty and a pitiful testament to your shallow frame of perception.

Ooh...I have been put into my proper place....*shudders*

Your incorrect assumption that you comprehended what you call my assumption is quite presumptuous.

Shuma-Gorath is a pitiful knock-off of Lovecraftian concepts most well known of which is Cthulhu. My comparison merely states that it is a cliche of original Lovecraftian concepts which themselves were spawned by his fear of fishy, slimy smelly things. And a poor one at that.

Try as you like my line of argumentation is irrefutable. You youself have offered two examples of the derivative nature of this lame construct (a pitiful thing I like to call "Little Shumy" or "The Minor Wriggler").

Good day to you sir/madame.

@kuonphobos said:

@Azathoth_The_Dread_Sleeper said:

@kuonphobos said:

Shuma is even more pitiful as it is a knock-off of the original.

His name was derived from that of the Outer Goddess, Shub-Niggurath.

His appearance was quite possibly shaped after the eldritch mountain god, Cyaegha, who dwells beneath the Dark Hill of Germany.

Your assumption that every Old One is a model after 'Cthulhu', a mere representative of the Great Old Ones themselves, is faulty and a pitiful testament to your shallow frame of perception.

Ooh...I have been put into my proper place....*shudders*

Your incorrect assumption that you comprehended what you call my assumption is quite presumptuous.

Shuma-Gorath is a pitiful knock-off of Lovecraftian concepts most well known of which is Cthulhu. My comparison merely states that it is a cliche of original Lovecraftian concepts which themselves were spawned by his fear of fishy, slimy smelly things. And a poor one at that.

Try as you like my line of argumentation is irrefutable. You youself have offered two examples of the derivative nature of this lame construct (a pitiful thing I like to call "Little Shumy" or "The Minor Wriggler").

Good day to you sir/madame.

Your so-called 'argumentation' is but the product of a substandard mentality, and that you are convinced it is 'irrefutable' is a testament to your delusions of grandeur. You pretend as if nothing else in the scope of mortal imagination was taken from other sources and reconstructed with notable nuances to suit their distinction. Concepts are not brought out from thin air. They are amalgams of previously acquired knowledge gradually molded in time by men sharing different experiences and perspectives.

You yourself are with a derivative nature as well, are you not? Everything about you is a consequence of a biological process piloted by natural selection with NO imaginative exertion required to complete. A pitiful resemblance of two infatuated mortals sharing their passions in privacy. Nothing about you is remotely different from those that bore you, let alone the the very human species you are akin to. Out of the billions of beings that make up your species, tens of thousands are likely to resemble you as much as do your forebears.

It appears now that 'the pot' is indeed 'calling the kettle black', as they say.

So.. Who's Shuma-gorath?

@Azathoth_The_Dread_Sleeper said:

Your so-called 'argumentation' is but the product of a substandard mentality, and that you are convinced it is 'irrefutable' is a testament to your delusions of grandeur.

You sir/madame have here merely revealed your own perspective that absolute truth is unattainable which is a belief construct I am afraid I do not share. It is so prima facie true to any non-biased observer that the notion of "The Minor Wriggler" aka "Little Shumy" is a sad and derivative plagiarism. The only saving grace being that such derivative dreck is unfortunately quite common, and has been since the original formation of the Lovecraft Circle.

You pretend as if nothing else in the scope of mortal imagination was taken from other sources and reconstructed with notable nuances to suit their distinction. Concepts are not brought out from thin air. They are amalgams of previously acquired knowledge gradually molded in time by men sharing different experiences and perspectives.

What you call "notable nuances" I call "hack plagiarism" or "shameless mimickry" or "unconscionable attempts to circumvent copyrights"

You yourself are with a derivative nature as well, are you not? Everything about you is a consequence of a biological process piloted by natural selection with NO imaginative exertion required to complete. A pitiful resemblance of two infatuated mortals sharing their passions in privacy. Nothing about you is remotely different from those that bore you, let alone the the very human species you are akin to. Out of the billions of beings that make up your species, tens of thousands are likely to resemble you as much as do your forebears.

This is, I am quite afraid, simply a non sequitur.

It appears now that 'the pot' is indeed 'calling the kettle black', as they say.

Sir/Madame as you may or may not now be quite well aware I am not at all persuaded by the use of such a non sequitur in the course of your argumentation. Your standards appear to be set so incredibly low that you would allow such an obviously pitiful and shameless pastiche to be included into the same conversation with the original ravings of a man so consumed by his fear of the opposite sex and their nether regions that I am simply at a loss for words.

Good Day.

@kuonphobos said:

It is so prima facie true to any non-biased observer that the notion of "The Minor Wriggler" aka "Little Shumy" is a sad and derivative plagiarism.

Just as it is for any non-biased observer to, at first glance, dismiss you as a mundane carbon copy of every other mortal meat-vessel they've encountered in a lifetime. That there are tens of thousands more who are likely to mirror your existence further damns you to the feckless category of the mundane. How does it feel to know that such plagiarisms have yet managed to provoke fascination in people far more than you have? To have your existence dwarfed by what is merely a figment of another mortal's imagination?

Does it sting you to endure with the idea that you will never be as good as a 'sad and derivative plagiarism' that merely exists within the pages of a fictitious apologue?

@kuonphobos said:

What you call "notable nuances" I call "hack plagiarism" or "shameless mimickry" or "unconscionable attempts to circumvent copyrights"

Your faltering mind causes you to confuse 'stealing' with 'borrowing'. Lovecraft's work is publicly accessible by all. The man himself has even actively encouraged others to borrow ideas from his stories and make references to his own work.

Plagiarism implies theft, which was far from the intention of Robert E. Howard when bringing to light the character 'Shuma-Gorath' in his works. In doing so, he was also, in the back of his mind, acknowledging Lovecraft as the true progenitor of the mythos out of which the creature was derived.

So as you can now see, contrary to your pathetic understanding of the terms you have so freely misused, unauthorized use of another's literary material and appreciative tribute are not at all interchangeable.

Originality is overrated, as it has been and always will be.

@kuonphobos said:

Sir/Madame as you may or may not now be quite well aware I am not at all persuaded by the use of such a non sequitur in the course of your argumentation.

Expecting one such as you to be persuaded at all is like hoping for the dead to be brought to life. And the latter is far more likely to happen in comparison.

@Azathoth_The_Dread_Sleeper said:

Just as it is for any non-biased observer to, at first glance, dismiss you as a mundane carbon copy of every other mortal meat-vessel they've encountered in a lifetime. That there are tens of thousands more who are likely to mirror your existence further damns you to the feckless category of the mundane. How does it feel to know that such plagiarisms have yet managed to provoke fascination in people far more than you have? To have your existence dwarfed by what is merely a figment of another mortal's imagination?

Does it sting you to endure with the idea that you will never be as good as a 'sad and derivative plagiarism' that merely exists within the pages of a fictitious apologue?

What is is you hope to achieve by spewing more unrelated babble? How does the consideration of my existence and my value to the universe even remotely relate to the subject at hand?

Your faltering mind causes you to confuse 'stealing' with 'borrowing'. Lovecraft's work is publicly accessible by all. The man himself has even actively encouraged others to borrow ideas from his stories and make references to his own work.

Plagiarism implies theft, which was far from the intention of Robert E. Howard when bringing to light the character 'Shuma-Gorath' in his works. In doing so, he was also, in the back of his mind, acknowledging Lovecraft as the true progenitor of the mythos out of which the creature was derived.

So as you can now see, contrary to your pathetic understanding of the terms you have so freely misused, unauthorized use of another's literary material and appreciative tribute are not at all interchangeable.

I see that it is your desire to maintain an extremely literal definition of the various terms I have chosen to utilize. Let me be more specific in the hope that you will be able to follow in the future. You seem to be missing the intended target and mayhaps be a soul prone to wander aimlessly in the forests of misunderstanding and misapplied rebuttals.

The "right" to borrow was never in question from my perspective. I question the lack of original thought which would prevent a person from creating their own ideas and not stooping to such derivative mimickry.

Originality is overrated, as it has been and always will be.

You sir/madame cause the Muses to weep tears of blood.

Expecting one such as you to be persuaded at all is like hoping for the dead to be brought to life. And the latter is far more likely to happen in comparison.

The experience of observing one such as yourself being able to focus upon the intended criticism and not wander through non sequiturs and misapplied rebuttals to phantom accusations would be as refreshing as the possibility that you might ever be able to actually muster an argument to which I might potentially be able to be persuaded by.

Good Day.

I dunno what the arguing is about, but praise Shuma-Gorath!

@kuonphobos said:

What is is you hope to achieve by spewing more unrelated babble?

What do you hope to achieve by taking the time of day to read and reply to my 'babble' with your babble?

What do you hope to achieve by asking such pointless, malformed questions that could easily be redirected towards you or anyone else?

@kuonphobos said:

How does the consideration of my existence and my value to the universe even remotely relate to the subject at hand?

By the very fact that you are bothered by a lack of originality in anything when you yourself have not a single original bone in your body. Your value, by virtue of this risible standard, is far less than a grain of sand when compared to concepts that are not 'original' in the traditional sense. It is rather amusing to watch 'the pot call the kettle black' in such a capricious fashion.

@kuonphobos said:

I see that it is your desire to maintain an extremely literal definition of the various terms I have chosen to utilize.

By setting the phrases "hack plagiarism" and "unconscionable attempts to circumvent copyrights" in the same sentence, you have already expressed full assent to the literal definition of these terms both contextually and by relation.

You have now either digressed from the usage of these terms in realizing that they have been misapplied or the hideous dearth in your communication skills is equaled by that of your comprehension.

@kuonphobos said:

Let me be more specific in the hope that you will be able to follow in the future. You seem to be missing the intended target and mayhaps be a soul prone to wander aimlessly in the forests of misunderstanding and misapplied rebuttals.

I find it especially humorous that you think my entire statement is effectively focused upon addressing your puny quarrels with an imaginary construct, when it was originally made to point out that your entire premise, on every level, is pathetically humorous and lopsided.

@kuonphobos said:

I question the lack of original thought which would prevent a person from creating their own ideas and not stooping to such derivative mimickry.

The existence of 'original thought' is about as close to reality as the imaginary friend of a delirious child.

Your questioning is not groundless.

People who seek 'originality' are equally as delirious as those who seek Parzival's Holy Grail.

The concept of Cthulhu was derived from a fish, a cephalopod, a gargoyle, and a man. The concept of a Centaur was derived from a man and a stallion. The concept of a Satyr was derived from a man and a goat.

Zeus is to Odin as Hercules is to Thor. Merlin is to Gandalf as Yahweh is to Eru. Octopus is to (Insert name of Lovecraftian deity) as (Insert name of Lovecraftian deity) is to fish, etc.

In short, originality is overrated.

@kuonphobos said:

You sir/madame cause the Muses to weep tears of blood.

I don't share your belief in fairy tales, and neither did Mark Twain or Carl Jung.

"For substantially all ideas are second-hand, consciously and unconsciously drawn from a million outside sources, and daily use by the garnerer with a pride and satisfaction born of the superstition that he originated them; whereas there is not a rag of originality about them anywhere except the little discoloration they get from his mental and moral calibre and his temperament, and which is revealed in characteristics of phrasing." (Mark Twain's Letters Vol. 2 of 2)

@Azathoth_The_Dread_Sleeper said:

@kuonphobos said:

What is is you hope to achieve by spewing more unrelated babble?

What do you hope to achieve by taking the time of day to read and reply to my 'babble' with your babble?

What do you hope to achieve by asking such pointless, malformed questions that could easily be redirected towards you or anyone else?

More unrelated babble. It appears that you seek to muddle the waters with pointless repetition. Indeed we can redirect these questions an infinitum. Remember, however, that you are the one who has chosen to chase this particular rabbit and has lead us down this rabbit hole.

@kuonphobos said:

How does the consideration of my existence and my value to the universe even remotely relate to the subject at hand?

By the very fact that you are bothered by a lack of originality in anything when you yourself have not a single original bone in your body. Your value, by virtue of this risible standard, is far less than a grain of sand when compared to concepts that are not 'original' in the traditional sense. It is rather amusing to watch 'the pot call the kettle black' in such a capricious fashion.

Your supposition renders any conversation moot. And it is still superfluous.

@kuonphobos said:

I see that it is your desire to maintain an extremely literal definition of the various terms I have chosen to utilize.

By setting the phrases "hack plagiarism" and "unconscionable attempts to circumvent copyrights" in the same sentence, you have already expressed full assent to the literal definition of these terms both contextually and by relation.

You have now either digressed from the usage of these terms in realizing that they have been misapplied or the hideous dearth in your communication skills is equaled by that of your comprehension.

They are not misapplied. You have simply failed to comprehend my nuance which is most likely due to your rigid inability to think originally.

@kuonphobos said:

Let me be more specific in the hope that you will be able to follow in the future. You seem to be missing the intended target and mayhaps be a soul prone to wander aimlessly in the forests of misunderstanding and misapplied rebuttals.

I find it especially humorous that you think my entire statement is effectively focused upon addressing your puny quarrels with an imaginary construct, when it was originally made to point out that your entire premise, on every level, is pathetically humorous and lopsided.

You cast aspersions but offer no evidence. Your grandiose self-conception has led you to the delusion that just by uttering a string of adjectives you have somehow impacted reality.

@kuonphobos said:

I question the lack of original thought which would prevent a person from creating their own ideas and not stooping to such derivative mimickry.

The existence of 'original thought' is about as close to reality as the imaginary friend of a delirious child.

Your questioning is not groundless.

People who seek 'originality' are equally as delirious as those who seek Parzival's Holy Grail.

The concept of Cthulhu was derived from a fish, a cephalopod, a gargoyle, and a man. The concept of a Centaur was derived from a man and a stallion. The concept of a Satyr was derived from a man and a goat.

Zeus is to Odin as Hercules is to Thor. Merlin is to Gandalf as Yahweh is to Eru. Octopus is to (Insert name of Lovecraftian deity) as (Insert name of Lovecraftian deity) is to fish, etc.

In short, originality is overrated.

Which is it "overrated" or "non existant"? For if it exists then it is indeed original. A "breaking into" our mundane reality by the power of inspiration. An if that exists then it is hardly "overrated"

@kuonphobos said:

You sir/madame cause the Muses to weep tears of blood.

I don't share your belief in fairy tales, and neither did Mark Twain or Carl Jung.

Interesting how they both made a legacy from them. Without those self-same fairy tales, we may not even recognize their names.

"For substantially all ideas are second-hand, consciously and unconsciously drawn from a million outside sources, and daily use by the garnerer with a pride and satisfaction born of the superstition that he originated them; whereas there is not a rag of originality about them anywhere except the little discoloration they get from his mental and moral calibre and his temperament, and which is revealed in characteristics of phrasing." (Mark Twain's Letters Vol. 2 of 2)

Said the man who himself was a manifestation of originality. Perhaps it is from his self-delusion and lack of self-awareness that you derive inspiration hmm?

Oh and a meme. I am persuaded. Very original.

At least it demonstrates more initiative than the derivative tripe that is Shuma-Gorath.

The Crimson Cosmos that is also myself has no respect for such filthy green bacterium such as the ones they call Shuma-Gorath and Cthulhu.

They are nothing but a blink away from my sight. Away with the both of you and begone.

Even a thread made by the creature of evil creates chaos! I am not worthy, o great one.