Stetson76

Did it work MW?

I couldn't agree more. While your point about racism in politics is completely correct, it's even deeper than that. All politics in this country has become an exercise in scorched earth tactics. I wonder what would happen to a candidate who ran on the platform, "I'm going to try and make as much money for myself as possible when I get elected. In doing that I'm going to try and get as much money for my constituents as possible so that you keep me in office. I will however not lie to you. I will tell you which lobby has my ear, who I accept gifts from and detail the rationale behind my every vote. I will practice self-interested altruism because what's good for you will end up benefiting me."

Just a reminder... www.cn-snafu.com come on down!

[quote name='Ramirus Maximus' timestamp='1280483286' post='2394901'] I thought it was funny too, haha. [/quote] So, did you let Schattenmann in on the fact that you were stealing someone else's questions? Man, in all of this, I thought the mud being slung your way was hyperbole used for political effect, but it turns out you really are that small.

I agree with letting this thread die, so everyone should stop posti...er I will miss by daily fix of GRE silliness. Congrats DAWN and IRON.

We need a pledge drive...

[quote name='Crymson' timestamp='1280029999' post='2387990'] Are you referring to Ertyy? He has, for a long time, been Ram's #1 crony. [/quote] I see I fail at sarcasm. My point was that Matthew was claiming that he convinced Ertyy, when it appears no convincing was needed. It was the only example of someone he could come up with that GRE's arguments have persuaded despite the assertion that anyone who really, really paid attention would be won over.

Our motto is the RL meaning of SNAFU.

I know. I thought this was public broadcasting?

[quote name='Matthew PK' timestamp='1279655371' post='2381140'] No criminal knows the exact sentence they'll receive, even through plea bargaining. You're correct that they do know a rough outline ("guidelines"), yet you are incorrect that we have not provided such to IRON: 1) Our Codex prevents us from issuing harsh terms. 2) We would be crushed by everyone (deservedly so) if we issued harsh terms. 3) We've practically come right out and said what the terms are like 50 times. 4) Pay attention. Ertyy [/quote] Those are not guidelines, they're assumptions. But I'll play along and answer you point by point. I'll answer #4 first: Admin help me, I've read every word of this and the Ramirus thread. My reading comprehension has gone up naturally just because I've seen the suggestion so many times, it's become subliminal. #1 You're codex states that you will not give terms that you would not accept. Considering the fact that you're whole alliance is being destroyed over statement of wrongdoing that you've admitted over and over again would not be sincere, I'm going to have to guess that you guys would accept any terms possible just because you like the pain. #2 Why would anyone crush you if you issued harsh terms if there wasn't a expectation that IRON agreed to them by unconditionally surrendering? That is the only way anyone, their friends or yours would have any issue with whatever terms you came up with was if IRON agreed to abide by them sight unseen. You've let your mask slip a little there Matthew, you've always known that unconditional surrender's true definition is agreeing to do whatever the victor says, you just needed a way to weasel out of the bad press and you're "resumption of hostilities" line seemed to work for a minute didn't it? #3 And yet, later on in this thread you make sure that everyone knows that you've not officially given notice of terms. What's the point, there's no reason to hold your little ace in the hole that you've not officially released them so you can slip something extra in, they're not taking them. Finally! You've convinced one person!!! So, when will he be joining GRE in this crusade...oh he was a member when this started? So, when will he be coming back? Oh, he never left? Man, he must really have taken a lot of convincing since he's stuck it out through this disaster. Good job!

Wait, wait, wait so does that mean a kestrel "is"?

I'm very sorry to hear this, and will keep this gentleman's friends and family in my thoughts and prayers. It's nice to see the STA honor their friend and thank you for the opportunity to share our condolences.

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='16 July 2010 - 12:54 AM' timestamp='1279259629' post='2374252'] Surrender [b]typically[/b] follows defeat but it doesn't always indicate such. As I've stated before, surrendering is a functional equivalent of submitting yourself in response to your wrongdoing. Just because a party *can* escape restitution for their actions doesn't make it the right thing to do. If I were to shoplift and I made it out of the store the odds of my being "caught" are quite low; but that doesn't mean it isn't right to acknowledge my wrongdoing. [/quote] You keep using a legal description of surrender yet you refuse to acknowledge that no criminal turns themselves in without knowing the worst case re their punishment. You've refused to detail the "sentencing" guidelines to allow them to make an informed decision. [quote]Surely you must see the folly in depending on the sincerity of an apology offered under duress? Especially considering so many IRON and DAWN members here have made it clear that you are not "sorry"[/quote] If they're not sorry, then what the hell are you trying to still accomplish? [quote]Many of those who took the time to actually understand the process and the motivation are no longer outraged. [/quote] Please point out one person who has come around to your argument that wasn't there to begin with?

Let's define what the meaning of the word "is" is...

[quote name='Ardus' date='14 July 2010 - 12:01 AM' timestamp='1279083653' post='2370482'] If such is what one expects from GOD then they have not been paying attention in the slightest. [/quote] Well, clearly even GOD thinks this of themselves, or they never would have expected this to work.

[quote name='Ardus' date='13 July 2010 - 11:47 PM' timestamp='1279082829' post='2370446'] A post threatening war that offers no details comes out of the blue and none of your synapses connect as to question how real or false it might be? Those of you who fell for it deserve the few days of peace mode. For the sake of all that is holy, [b]think[/b]. [/quote] Unless, they don't expect anything more from GOONS and GOD?

So, you wanted to prove to everyone that half the world thinks you can be that much of an $@! to your allies. Point taken. Thanks.

Any suggestions on what will work?

The first night is usually pretty crazy although I'm like many and up past update most nights anyway. And frankly, once you're in a nuclear war, update's a terrible time to attack, unless it's the only time you can coordinate with your fire team. (I guess I'm not much on the defense, I just prefer to do as much damage as I can while taking my lumps as a cost of doing business.)

So, snarky political comments don't get it done either?

We do clearly need more: [img]http://img.youtube.com/vi/4bxpvNb5fKg/0.jpg[/img] But I thought the forces of the New Hegemony had the patent on that?

Wfbone, you promised me tons of new members from this thread, what's going on?

[quote="Ramirus"]You see, it's not about moral absolutes (as has been argued on the OWF), it's about our friends -vs- not our friends. We're not the world police; if IRON wants to go attack someone for no reason, hey...knock yourselves out. Just quit attacking the Grämlins' friends, okay?...[/quote] Then why do you, or your text writer, present in the wording of the ESA amendment an "internationally recognized standard" and not just GRE's stance regarding attacking their friends? You can't say that you only care about what happens for to your friends and then attempt to set precedent for the entire world. [quote=Ramirus]...[b]As I told Polar when they attacked \m/: "I don't see anything wrong with what \m/ did, but I don't see anything wrong with you attacking them for it either. Politics is a game after all."[/b] Now, if \m/ had been an ally of the Grämlins, it would be a different issue.[/quote] [quote=Ramirus]Most people would rather see IRON establish the precedent that attacking people with no reason is fine as long as you win. It's ironic that the people championing them are the same people that usually raise such a ruckus about CBs. Good job you guys; you're well on your way to getting rid of CBs altogether.[/quote] Emphasis mine. Wow, in the span of one interview you can't be consistent. You don't seen anything wrong with what \m/ did, but IRON's the one who's trying to establish precedent? And not only that but you're blaming others for trying to get rid of CB's which is something you specifically said you "don't see anything wrong with"? I can understand that as a non-mouth breather with a supremely bumpy brain it's very easy for you to speak out of both sides of your mouth, but I guess that's the intrigue you're so hoping for. Just don't expect anyone, without a politically expedient reason to be your friend, to accept it for anything other than you being a hypocrite and disingenuous.

Hmmmm...muffins...I gotta admit, I just love breakfast food in general. LOL

[quote name='Tromp' date='28 June 2010 - 06:25 PM' timestamp='1277767494' post='2353328'] It is funny to see this statement in light of the whole debate in this thread, since it was exactly what Gremlins was opposing: the fact that the ESA were nothing more then a bribe, certainly so in the eyes of IRON&co. [/quote] As much as I agree with TypoNinja's analysis of the practical result of reps, I personally think they are much more than a bribe, they are the "fine" or penalty imposed by the victorious party. Now I wasn't in on the discussions, but if the losers showed up and said, "I'm offering you X amounts of tech/cash for peace", then yes, I guess my understanding of the terms is incorrect, but if the question was "what are your demands", then my point stands. The major problem with the GRE stance is their desire to not disclose the requirements for peace beyond the unconditional surrender. What they failed to grasp is that giving a defeated foe an ultimatum is different from negotiating with them something Ramirus clearly understands as indicated by his quote here in the JimKongIl blog post: [quote name='JimKongIl' date='25 June 2010 - 10:08 PM'] Ramirus: No, that's not what it means in -any- English dictionary or similar source. It means the ones doing the surrender have no conditions. It doesn't mean they cannot later have conditions. It doesn't mean they, by virtue of the surrender, are agreeing to ANYTHING. It means: we aren't demanding anything as a condition of our surrender.In fact, in real world history, unconditional surrender is usually demanded as an ALTERNATIVE to complete destruction. For example: "Surrender without condition, or I'll kill you all". That sentence carries an implied agreement NOT to kill those who the speaker is requesting the unconditional surrender from. So you see that there is nothing inherent in the concept itself which has any relation to what comes next.[/quote] Using his own definition, unconditional surrender is usually an alternative to destruction. Now, I know that Matthew and Ramirus have both claimed that they never thought they could win this fight, but as with any request or demand there must be an alternative and seeing as there wasn't one laid out, so the alternative they were offering must have been GRE's demise. There are no other possible outcomes of this choose your own adventure other than A) IRON/DAWN unconditionally surrenders, B) GRE beats them into agreeing to unconditionally surrender (something they claim they never could have done, so this option can be ruled out) or C) GRE loses the war and is decimated. EVERY demand, request, suggestion has to have an alternative something Ramirus understands, but inexplicably didn't take into account.