mpol777

Nice counter-argument there goober. Did you forget which side you're on?

Gimme another hour or so. I'm working on it.

Imperialism is not inherently negative. Neither is liberalism, conservatism, fascism, capitalism, pacifism, and a lot of other -ism's. they just describe something and can give other words context. Negative or positive depends on the audience. If you called me a pacifist, I'd stab you in the face. Both because I would take it as an insult (negative) and to prove you wrong. If you did the same to someone from GPA, they'd likely say "Thanks" (positive) and make you some chai tea.

Pretty sure the definition of "moralist" is already set. It's one of the fundamental aspects of a language. Words have meaning. Some have many meanings. If there are multiple meanings you can pick the one you want by adding context or descriptors (read: more words). What you don't get to do is redefine words arbitrarily. Well, you can, but then nobody will know what the hell you're talking about and you'll look like an idiot. Most people here have issues with words and their current meanings. Let's not make it harder on them by just making !@#$ up m'kay?

FAN - Some folks - Some other folks

What is your coalition calling itself?

Not in my book. Nobody puts Stumpy in a corner.

How could you think that was my motivation? I've gotten some before. And Bob awards for that matter. Hmmm Jealous perhaps? You can have my Bob award. You deserve it more than I do. I'll have to dig it out of my CN mementos box. Guy at the pawn shop said it wasn't worth !@#$ anyway. I'll even toss in a super-secret Initiative decoder ring and a "lolFAN" t-shirt.

That Trashcat's corner did not win an award in the '09 Bobs is a travesty. Curse you MK and your ability to fill out polls. CURSE YOUUUUUUUUUUU!!!!!

But doesn't it seem strange that someone would go to war for someone else, but not have open communication? "I'll fight along side you, but NO TALKING". It's one of the problems. Alliances change. They grow and mature over the course of time. So what was true 2 years ago, might not be true today. And situations change. It's not possible to go over every possible scenario. Especially in a world where people like myself are always coming up with oddball ideas. There has to be ongoing, open dialog.

I agree, to a point. Most treaties have time limits on the cancellations. So if communication isn't present and an action is done by one signatory that happens immediately, then there is no chance for the other to have a say on the issue. There is the argument that if an alliance told their ally what they were planning that the ally might cancel the treaty, but if that's the case then maybe they shouldn't be doing that action in the first place. If one has to 'sneak' their actions to ensure their contract partners are technically obligated to them, there are serious issues with their relationships. I'd also like to clarify that these are general comments. Every alliance has to decide on it's own whether it applies to their relationships and treaties or not.

If the communication stops when the pen hits the paper, then it's doomed. It has to be ongoing for a relationship to work. Yeah... they did a little more than hold it against us.

That sword cuts both ways. A treaty is meant to be an affirmation of a relationship. Even if the wording does not include a clause on communication or information sharing, those things are inherent if only by the application of common sense. If one signatory has the expectation that the other should join in an action, then the other signatory has a reasonable expectation to not only be informed of that action, but have some input on the matter. I'm not just pulling this out of my $@!, but from experience.

It is that expectation that makes the bastardized version of treaties used on planet Bob so worthless. Well, it's one of the things that make them worthless, but it's high on the list. This happens every war. People run around shaking pieces of paper, arguing about who was expected to do what. A good relationship is based on communication, not blind expectations.

I have no opinion on your stance in regards to this conflict, but I do applaud your application of the spirit of treaties. You're already catching some flak over it and I'm sure that will continue, but that is mostly from those that don't understand what a treaty is supposed to mean. I'd hope you would take some time to reevaluate your treaties. If you have to put words to a relationship it's not a friendship, it's a contract. This move shows you are beyond contracts. In any case, good show.

All this talk about blitzes makes me want to punch a baby. You all might not be embarrassed, but I'm embarrassed for you. It's an antiquated tactic that last served it's purpose over 2 years ago. It shouldn't even be being used in modern warfare. If, for some reason, you want to go retro then wars need to be counted by pages, not singularly. If you're not filling 20+ pages in as many minutes of solid war declarations, then don't even bother bringing up the word. The blitz is dead. The people that can pull it off the way it should be done, know better than to use it.

I thought I saw you in the "Midgets and monkies" private channel, but you never said hi. That made me sad.

And I thought FAN diplomacy sucked. I tip my hat sir, as you have bested us.

You've entirely missed the concept of a generation. Might want to go ask your mom where babies come from.

Polls that don't have an option for 'pie' aren't worth voting in.

No zombies?

As much as I like you folks, any time a bloc dies it brings a smile to my face. A bad idea perpetuated out of a necessity that doesn't exist anymore.

Will there be pie?

What he said

I can !@#$ live chickens. At first read that might not seem important, but for the fact that most alliances are fearful of men that !@#$ live chickens. Not because of the man, but because of the chicken. Any chicken that can make it's way live out of the rectum of a human is bound to be... how should I put it... a bit perturbed. And I've been saving my rectal chickens. OH YES!! I have! They are not pleased. And they are many. So, as is plain to see, your theory has no merit.