Jump to content

We're watching you


Letum

Recommended Posts

Depends on whether you by "dividing in half" mean "dividing into two equally-sized pieces" or "dividing into two symmetric pieces". The former could be done in a way not resulting in two right triangles.

I took cut in half to mean with exactly one straight-line "cut".  But yes admittedly you could divide any shape into two pieces of equal surface area in any number of ways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 340
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I took cut in half to mean with exactly one straight-line "cut".  But yes admittedly you could divide any shape into two pieces of equal surface area in any number of ways.

 

You can not make 2 right triangle with one straight-line cut.  Picture taking the top off a triangle, leaving below a trapezoid, and above a triangle, each of equal area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Section 2
An attack on one signatory is an attack on all signatories. All signatories shall provide military, economic and diplomatic assistance. This clause supersedes all other treaties held by signatories.
 

 

The last sentence of this section should be called "CubaQuerida clause"... Basically all signatories of this document are stating here that they may attack other alliances despite of non-aggresion provisions. They may even attack their allies. If we were allied to any of this bloc members, we would cancel on them immediately. Fortunately, SPATR doesn't have that problem.

Edited by murtibing
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The last sentence of this section should be called "CubaQuerida clause"... Basically all signatories of this document are stating here that they may attack other alliances despite of non-aggresion provisions. They may even attack their allies. If we were allied to any of this bloc members, we would cancel on them immediately. Fortunately, SPATR doesn't have that problem.

I think you're looking at it wrong, the message from the clause is don't attack us.

If an ally was stupid enough to attack Oculus then that's the allies fault for attacking an ally of their ally, why would you cancel a treaty on the chance that you may go full retard if you decide to keep the treaty.

However I don't know WTF they have going on but that's just my thoughts, I think you're looking too far into this simple text which I think is a basic clause if you're starting a massive bloc of alliances with the type of intent they have in terms of politics.

Edited by Commander shepard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you're looking at it wrong, the message from the clause is don't attack us.

If an ally was stupid enough to attack Oculus then that's the allies fault for attacking an ally of their ally, why would you cancel a treaty on the chance that you may go full retard if you decide to keep the treaty.

However I don't know WTF they have going on but that's just my thoughts, I think you're looking too far into this simple text which I think is a basic clause if you're starting a massive bloc of alliances with the type of intent they have in terms of politics.

 

Attacking your own ally is always bad - it is dishonourable.

 

Attacking ally of ally may be bad or not - it depends on the situation.

 

And I wouldn't call attacking ally of ally "full retard". It is something which happened many times. The most recent example is NSO (Non Grata ally) attacking CA (which is also Non Grata ally, as CA is their protectorate on paper).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...