Ganjazistan

Congratulations TUF here's to two more and then two more you get the picture

[quote name='Rebel Virginia' date='13 July 2010 - 11:43 PM' timestamp='1279078995' post='2370226'] [color="#0000FF"]After so many new alliances forming and claiming to be something new and special, can you really blame me for being how I am? CMEA returned from being members of the RnR, and then proceed to sign a treaty with RnR. Essentially they are just a branch of RnR right now. So, what is the point of it existing? I mean no offense. I is simply an honest observation and question.[/color] [/quote] You mean kinda like how NpO was essentially just an arm of NPO way back whenever? Honestly, don't you have anything better to do?

[quote name='Ashoka the Great' date='10 July 2010 - 01:34 PM' timestamp='1278783267' post='2365949'] You know, you could have tried addressing his point, which was quite valid. CMEA [i]was[/i] unremarkable in its first iteration. Although I suppose making yourself look like a crying child works, too. [/quote] Does the fact that RV, or anyone for that matter, thinks that CMEA was "unremarkable" mean that is has no right to existence and/or rebirth? I submit that no one not named Admin has the right to make such a determination. I also suggest that RV (and his defenders) are intelligent enough to realize this. Carrying this train of thought to it's logical conclusion, it's rather obvious that all RV was doing was trying to get a reaction, commonly referred to as trolling, if I am not mistaken. Also, I can't help but wondering two things: A) What exactly would make an alliance remarkable? Is there some sort of RV chart/checklist to help us determine such things? Or is that maybe a very subjective call, depending upon each individual's motives and experiences? B) Does RV plan on informing all "unremarkable" alliances of their mediocrity, or is this reserved for the ones he has some sort of grudge against?

Here's to a glorious rebirth and renaissance of the former CMEA spirit and ideals. aka woooooooooooooooooooooooooooot!!!!!

[quote name='cmf0203' date='31 May 2010 - 08:16 PM' timestamp='1275351398' post='2318297'] Note: All of this was against my better judgement.[/quote] IIRC, [i]you[/i] were against my better judgment, but what the heck I've learned to live with it [quote name='theArrowheadian' date='01 June 2010 - 12:09 AM' timestamp='1275365355' post='2318639'] The lack of bourbon and myself in this topic are very disturbing. [/quote] [img]http://www.barnonedrinks.com/tips/dictionary/images/658.jpg[/img] eh, 1 out of 2

Now, I wonder who wrote the above words of wisdom? And, before you start: Yeah, the quotes are taken from a blog entry of yours about bandwagoning. So, go ahead and say it's "out of context". (Oh, the irony!) Still, I find it just this side of hypocrisy that the person who wrote those words, would somehow feel justified in telling two sovereign alliances how to interpret and/or implement a treaty that precludes his even being in CN. Also, Well, at least you were in the neighborhood... The actual relevant part is Just for the hell of it, and the fact that I can't get to sleep,I not only checked our forums, and our archives, but every log of our gov channels I could find and, dang it, I just couldn't seem to find any such notice. Have a nice day, Haflinger. P.S. (way OOC) I'm curious as to why you named yourself after a semi-obscure breed of horse. Did you have one as a child or something?

[quote name='blanding' date='04 May 2010 - 01:31 PM' timestamp='1272994300' post='2286523'] i got the recruitment message from WebGuest80 [size="1"]he's to awesome to have to use a real nick on IRC[/size] [/quote] I'm just blindly following my hero, blanding.

Funny how many R&Rers are in here congratulating their former leader the one with "questionable loyalty". As someone else sorta pointed out, the only thing questionable about GFL is his choice of NASCAR drivers. Grats old man, well deserved.

You sir/madam are so beyond clueless as to the relationship between FOK and R&R as to borderline on the utterly hilarious.

NPO has had many people throughout their history that are quite competent with the English language and should have had no problem with making their terms very specific. When something is worded, "only keep enough soldiers" as opposed to ,"shall not have more than 20% soldiers", it is quite reasonable to think that maybe, just maybe it was worded that way intentionally as a loophole for redeclaration. Which is all a moot point as it is pretty obvious that the real "class" move was waiting until there were only 4 days left on the terms to enact this clause. Unless you want to try to tell us that it just wasn't noticed till then? edit:forgot a word or two

can we bring Catacos?

Congratulations MK Why in the world would someone ask that? If they're not around, why even mention them?

Dude, I don't care how many 1, 2,3, 10 nation or whatever alliances you care to join, found or merge, but please, for the love of whomever quit using bright yellow bold caps please

This is the sanest thing I have read in these here forums for, well, it seems like forever.

yaaaaaaaaaaay Phil!