Haflinger's Blog

Hey, there, Invicta:

R&R isn't doing what you want them to do. Going to do something about it?

Schatt, for the last time. I'm a mid-level government member in Invicta's Finance department.

If you think that makes me somehow responsible for all Invicta actions, you are sorely mistaken.

Schattenmann spoke, and lo! it was.

So which AA was I supposed to use in my cute retort, something other than the author's? Let's all put our logic hats on--what, you don't have one? Ok, you can borrow mine.

You could actually respond to the argument, instead of trying your hand at ad hominem.

Your "argument" is "hurfdurf I'm in ur wiki interpretin' ur treeteez" You get a response in kind: "hurfdurf, whatcha gonna do about it?" Have you started interpreting the Codex for tomorrow's blog? Gremlins and IRON have been at war for weeks; you know that if they were going to do something about it, it's already been done, or that they're just not going to do something about it. IRON played chicken and ran their hotrod into a brick wall like a bunch of hootin'-hollerin' rednecks on a Saturday night in June. You had your pick of like 400 threads to lay this one down, but, ah! magic! there's nothing to stop you from "repeat blogs."

And, grow up and get over the ad hominem silver bullet (you wish). It doesn't work, especially when it doesn't apply. Your reply was dumb, it overlooked the simple, so-easy-a-toddler-can-do-it format of my reply. Sorry you missed out.

Somehow I imagine the relationship between IRON and R&R is the business of...IRON and R&R.

R&R HAS NO HONOR I AM OUTRAGED

Gramlins engaged IRON in defence of an ally. Going by past precedent, such counter-declarations are not generally an automatic trigger for MDP's.

Grem actions since then do not particularly change that. I do not really believe anyone in IRON regards RnR as being in violation of their agreement.

What I find interesting is that the treaty doesn't have a "You started it, you're on your own" clause. Talk about poor wording.

Beyond that, I do believe Woody has made the only point that matters. Speculation is fun and all -- and let's face it, it makes up the bulk of the posts on the OWF -- but this is for other folks to talk about.

In the spirit of your entry, however:

"Does Invicta have a treaty with IRON or DAWN? If so, why isn't Invicta speaking to the alliances you surrendered to in order to seek a revision of your terms? If not, why don't you sign one and then speak to said alliances?"

Acta Non Verba and all that....

What I find interesting is that the treaty doesn't have a "You started it, you're on your own" clause. Talk about poor wording.

Well for the sake of the truth, IRON didn't attack Gramlins, Gramlins attacked IRON without any treaty obligation to do so.

Gremlins attacked IRON in defense of MK (an alliance which IRON hit without a treaty to do so either so don't start that). R&R was on the other side of the war. IRON knew this when they purposely sided against R&R and her allies. It's not R&R's fault that IRON joined the side aiming to destroy or bloody R&R and CnG.

You know as well as anyone else that sometimes alliances have to choose between sides. R&R chose the side their bloc and friends were in. IRON joined the side opposite of that. R&R doesn't have to bail IRON out because their side lost.

Now please, go away Invicta.

Let me illustrate this in a different way for you so that maybe you understand, Haflinger.

*IRON declares their intent to help bloody/destroy SF (R&R), ignoring their treaty with R&R to go a treaty-less route against them

*IRON loses

*IRON wants R&R's help achieving nicer peace terms than they're currently getting.

And quite frankly, it's not our fault that your side abandoned one on the field. Stop trying to throw the blame for your cowardy actions onto us.

Well for the sake of the truth, IRON didn't attack Gramlins, Gramlins attacked IRON without any treaty obligation to do so.

And IRON attacked the SF side instead of what they were obligated to do (defend it). So why should R&R bail them out when their "friends" left them on the battlefield?

while it would be cool if RnR helped IRON, this thread is kinda awkward.

R&R entered the war through their own choice too. Allies and friends should still be allies and friends even if they end up on opposite sides of other people's political wars.

Perhaps they should not be fighting for IRON, but I hope they are doing something.

And yeah, calling them out in public is probably not the way to get them to do so.

blah blah blah blah im trying to call out RnR who is clearly making their efforts to help out IRON blah blah blah

YOU TERRIBLE PEOPLE RNR HOW COULD YOU TRY TO RESOLVE IT DIPLOMATICALLY AND NOT GO TO WAR BECAUSE HAFLINGER TELLS YOU TO??

Seriously, stop. RnR isn't a bad alliance, and they are trying to help IRON. Til I see someone from IRON government state RnR isn't trying to help them, I will believe what I have been informed which is RnR is trying to help diplomatically. Let them resolve their own issues, as I hope both parties are capable of doing. Your nonsense doesn't matter, and no one agrees with it of any importance. You have bigwoody and BJ both telling you (who support IRON, to be clear) that you are wrong to do this, so why on earth would you think something like this would accomplish anything except you getting more negative attention?

RnR are good guys, let IRON and RnR worry about their treaty

Somehow I imagine the relationship between IRON and R&R is the business of...IRON and R&R.

This man is wise.

Well for the sake of the truth, IRON didn't attack Gramlins, Gramlins attacked IRON without any treaty obligation to do so.

Oh, I know. I was commenting on the actual treaty itself, not trying to apply it to this situation.

R&R are good folk and we love each other.

Plus, Ego is my wifey

The relationship between IRON and R&R is really none of your business Haflinger and I doubt they care what you have to say in a blog post.

Gremlins attacked IRON in defense of MK (an alliance which IRON hit without a treaty to do so either so don't start that). R&R was on the other side of the war. IRON knew this when they purposely sided against R&R and her allies. It's not R&R's fault that IRON joined the side aiming to destroy or bloody R&R and CnG.

You know as well as anyone else that sometimes alliances have to choose between sides. R&R chose the side their bloc and friends were in. IRON joined the side opposite of that. R&R doesn't have to bail IRON out because their side lost.

Now please, go away Invicta.

Let me illustrate this in a different way for you so that maybe you understand, Haflinger.

*IRON declares their intent to help bloody/destroy SF (R&R), ignoring their treaty with R&R to go a treaty-less route against them

*IRON loses

*IRON wants R&R's help achieving nicer peace terms than they're currently getting.

And quite frankly, it's not our fault that your side abandoned one on the field. Stop trying to throw the blame for your cowardy actions onto us.

And IRON attacked the SF side instead of what they were obligated to do (defend it). So why should R&R bail them out when their "friends" left them on the battlefield?

IRON declared against CnG not SF. thus, you whole "IRON declares their intent to help bloody/destroy SF (R&R)" bit is utter bs. in fact, IRON should have declared on FARK who is in SF but did not.

LOOK!! OVER HERE!! PAY ATTENTION TO ME!!!

Also, Schatt, you rock

IRON declared against CnG not SF. thus, you whole "IRON declares their intent to help bloody/destroy SF (R&R)" bit is utter bs. in fact, IRON should have declared on FARK who is in SF but did not.

Wrong. They declared with TOP, and TOP said their intention was to bloody CnG AND SF.

Edit: Ohhhh I can't wait until I go rogue, Haflinger

Yea we do stuff every now and then, we just don't feel obligated to tell the world.

R&R is at least hiding IRON nations on it's AA~

It's not as if there is no support.

Wrong. They declared with TOP, and TOP said their intention was to bloody CnG AND SF.

Edit: Ohhhh I can't wait until I go rogue, Haflinger

He's right on the point that IRON should have declared on SF signatories Fark or GOD who attacked NSO. They didn't really have any obligations to defend SF at all. Not attacking SF or using one of the other numerous available treaty lines is one of the reasons why IRON is where it is today.