KillerTomato
-
Posts
141 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by KillerTomato
-
-
GO LEAFS GO!
You meant Senators right?
-
We might not need to have a consensus, but we do need to agree on the *definition* of any particular word. How are blanket statements and neutrality related? The answer is "not at all." Making or not making a blanket statement is irrelevant to the GPA's neutrality. It's the content of a particular blanket statement that can be judged as neutral or not.
There are times when reasonable people might disagree. This is not one of those times. "It's just my opinion, man" isn't a free pass to validating your illogical statements.
I'm not seeking validation in your eyes.
I've dropped the subject.
-
Nope, we are not declaring war on Sparta (check that out by the way), We do not have even one war on Sparta and never did. We are only sanctioning known ememies of our alliance in retaliation to their attacks on us
I'm just curious as to how you think you are going to maintain a position in the senate when your members are hunted by the continuum.
-
Your lack of understanding isn't covered under "seeing it in a different light". You're wrong, plain and simple.
You are very wrong.
There are different opinions on topic. That doesn't mean the other opinion is wrong.
I see blanket statements as quite the opposite to neutral. You do not.
We don't need to be at a consensus.
-
There's nothing to say it is not of the white team. This may come later. they Are a democracy, and therefore anything can happen. We must moniter the situation closely.
I concur my fellow priest.
Monitor this alliance we shall.
-
this was fortold no? Someone predicted that there would be another order very soon...creepy.
You have been blessed by the soothsayers. Goodluck not dying.
This is not the alliance of prophecy.
That alliance will belong to the white team remember?
We must return to the Great Temple and continue our prayers
-
I think this has evolved to an internal issue that should be dealt with internally.
This public forum is not the place to conduct treaty negotiations.
-
There is no measure of neutrality in deciding who is going to be a member. I don't see why this is so difficult. It's an internal affair.
I suppose I just see it in a different light than you.
-
I must admit.
If this does work, it is a form of war that I never anticipated. A pleasant surprise.
-
So you're saying they should just accept anyone? Maybe you should go read over the reasons for this war...
No.
I already outlined what a more neutral response would be.
-
No, it doesn't. They're both entirely their business.
You might replace "neutral" with "nice" or "forgiving" and be accurate, yes. But neither of those have to do with neutrality.
Sure it does.
A neutral stance would not involve basing your alliance acceptance over the actions of another alliance such as being made a POW.
-
....?
Neither have any degree of neutrality associated with them at all. Neutral doesn't mean "nice guy" or "all-forgiving". It means minding your own business. Admitting members is certainly their business.
One is more neutral than the other.
Or more, "minding their own business" than the other.
-
Miost likeyly because they kicjked out Crapilli king
Ahhh yes.
I knew about that one too. Good call.
OOC: Think McFly, think!
-
Ouch.
Illuminati with a big fall. Is everyone ok?
-
We will try our hardest, but I assure you they are two completely different symbols.
Upon further consideration you sir, are correct.
Perhaps you are of the lesser evil, Parasol Corporation.
I shall keep my eye on you none the less.
-
Like I said, please don't get me wrong.
I'm all for advancing your own alliance through strict adherence to treaties.
Just make sure you are true to yourself and to everyone else what your true intentions are. For, as you can see, you will be called to defend those intentions.
-
my last signature as illuminati MoFA
Although I didn't know of this being created
Good luck to atlantis anyways
You signed it without knowing of its creation?
Eh?
-
Not so much cheating as it is unsportsmanlike conduct.
-
I was being lightheated too. : /
What did I tell you about srs thread??!!??1??!
-
Everyone relax.
It was a simple discussion on the technicalities of POW reinstatement.
No need to get up in arms. Intelligent debate is always key to a healthy mind (OCC: and board).
It turns out I was debating about the reinstatement of POWs formerly of GPA.
Schattenmann was speaking on their actual departure from the alliance.
A simple misunderstanding. Perhaps on my part. No harm, no foul.
-
I must point out the similarities between the FUC's logo and that of the Umbrella Corporation.
I'd be careful with these guys. I don't want to have to deal with any T-virus events any time soon.
-
Both.
It was certainly not in their best interests to merge with an alliance that they had just made contact with, and only wanted them for their numbers (To make the analogy: Your daughter meets this guy and he wants to marry her, but they've only just met and he clearly only wants her for her body, not out of any sense of love. As the father, do you even remotely approve of that?)
As a father I would respect my daughters decision. She is an adult and sometimes adults need to learn the hard way.
How can an alliance learn from experience and grow if it has daddy telling it what it can and can't do?
-
My Mod, man. There is no true controversy because this is a standard policy instated in every alliance. Nations that surrender in war to individual terms: (1) resign effectively (2) are deserters (3) must re-apply if they want to come back. Your skewed and fallacious understanding of neutrality an dhow it is applied has created a controversy of your own mind.
Oh, and I didn't respond to your comment on my snappiness: I refer to you my signature.
I'm not asking you to be less snappy or rude. Simply stating that in intelligent, respectful debate, ad hominem and other insults only take away from your credibility. Having a disclaimer in our signature does not change that fact.
You are not even reading what I post are you?
It may be proper procedure, tradition, or set in stone law. Denying all POWs re-entry into the GPA after the war is over is not a neutral stance.
You have yet to answer my question so I shall simplify it.
What is a more neutral stance?
A ) No POWs will be accepted back after the war
B ) POWs wishing to rejoin after the war will be subject to a situation specific assessment
*edit
Upon re reading the OP, I've come to the realization that we are arguing separate points.
I still would like your opinion on the question though.
-
Seems a little like you're saying you will "protect them for their own good, whether they like it or not".
The "whether they like it or not" part.
I tend to agree with Mr. Boon.
Who are you really looking out for here? Your protectorate or yourself?
Don't get me wrong. If it is for yourself, I would completely understand. Just make sure you don't attempt to convince yourself or the rest of the world otherwise.
*edit
Arg! Typo
NEW ALLIANCE
in Alliance Politics
Posted
Psssst. Hey buddy.
I'll let you in on a secret.
Their alliance hardly exists...