Stetson76

Huh, we just reached the top 100 alliance list...

If I'm the worst of what we can do, we're a very lucky alliance. LOL

It's always sad to see an alliance disband. Although we've found ourselves on different sides through the whole purple debacle, I appreciated how you carried yourselves. Good luck moving forward and I hope you all find good homes.

Oh well, if we didn't want to scare them off, we wouldn't be letting me post in it now would we?

Congratulations guys, that's quite an accomplishment.

Screw that! I'm SNAFU...oo, oo, oo, oo.

Apparently no one is SNAFU.

Whooooooo are you? SNAFU, SNAFU...

Congratulations to our friends in Olympus and to the NPO.

[quote name='Heyman' date='19 May 2010 - 08:27 PM' timestamp='1274318852' post='2303987'] I was wondering when this would happen. Congrats to both parties. [s]I love you, Charlie.[/s] [/quote] Why don't you love Charlie anymore?

Matthew, I realize I may have posted this during your time of limited access, but I would like to hear your thoughts: [quote name='Matthew PK' date='13 May 2010 - 11:28 AM' timestamp='1273768082' post='2297005'] The Gremlins declared war to defend against IRON's unwarranted attack. On the other hand, like I asked of Gamemaster, find me [b]specific[/b] examples and I'll be happy to read them. [/quote] Okay, I'm going to try again. Matthew, please look at the quotes up above, and notice the missing words in the first line: [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=79441]TOP[/url], [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=79444&st=0&p=2138894&hl=declare&fromsearch=1&#entry2138894]TORN[/url] declared war in the same manner and at the same time IRON/DAWN did. In fact, TOP declared first. (Not to discount FEAR and TSO who are pretty universally added to this list, their DOW's came much later.) I've also conveniently added the links to their DOW's to satisfy your request for specific examples so you can "read them." Not only do I not need to dig through ancient history to come up with examples for you, this points out that your "defense of MK/friends" line is nothing but a bold faced lie. If you were indeed standing on an absolute principle you would have at minimum declared on these other two alliances. So, yes, let's stop bandying about definitions of unconditional surrender or terms or any of the other things we've been discussing, and answer the question that many others have been asking. Why would you in defense of an [b]absolute[/b] principle in which you were [b]obligated[/b] to act for the sake of the Cyberverse not declare war on TOP or TORN? The entire argument that you are making without any cute turns of phrase or reference to a dictionary falls on this single point. You've selectively applied your principles and are in no position to make a moral judgment at this late date. I've watched you through this entire thread use logic as your cornerstone (despite disagreeing with your conclusions) and have come to respect your loyalty and dogged adherence to principle so please, apply that logic and recognize that your stance is incompatible with your alliance's actions. Just to make it clear, I'm not asking you to declare on these people now, I'm asking you to explain to everyone (but especially yourself) how GRE can engage in a moral crusade that is so clearly prejudiced and narrow minded.

I just want to thank TPF for their continued friendship and say that I've been looking forward to this treaty for a long time. Aside from Carpe Diem who stepped up and protected us when we started out TPF was there almost from day one. They offered a treaty to us before we ever got "bottom heavy" but were most happy to see that friendship rewarded with a steady supply of tech deals. That friendship and understanding has directly lead to this day. Your loyalty is second to none and I look forward to reciprocating should the time come. o/ TPF Oh, and Deathcat, I prefer clarified butter with my lobster, will that be a problem?

Huh, I thought that would have elicited a comment of some sort...

You're right, our average nation strength is getting too high! LOL

I can't believe this epic thread has not lead to any new recruits! LOL

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='13 May 2010 - 11:28 AM' timestamp='1273768082' post='2297005'] The Gremlins declared war to defend against IRON's unwarranted attack. On the other hand, like I asked of Gamemaster, find me [b]specific[/b] examples and I'll be happy to read them. [/quote] Okay, I'm going to try again. Matthew, please look at the quotes up above, and notice the missing words in the first line: [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=79441]TOP[/url], [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=79444&st=0&p=2138894&hl=declare&fromsearch=1&#entry2138894]TORN[/url] declared war in the same manner and at the same time IRON/DAWN did. In fact, TOP declared first. (Not to discount FEAR and TSO who are pretty universally added to this list, their DOW's came much later.) I've also conveniently added the links to their DOW's to satisfy your request for specific examples so you can "read them." Not only do I not need to dig through ancient history to come up with examples for you, this points out that your "defense of MK/friends" line is nothing but a bold faced lie. If you were indeed standing on an absolute principle you would have at minimum declared on these other two alliances. So, yes, let's stop bandying about definitions of unconditional surrender or terms or any of the other things we've been discussing, and answer the question that many others have been asking. Why would you in defense of an [b]absolute[/b] principle in which you were [b]obligated[/b] to act for the sake of the Cyberverse not declare war on TOP or TORN? The entire argument that you are making without any cute turns of phrase or reference to a dictionary falls on this single point. You've selectively applied your principles and are in no position to make a moral judgment at this late date. I've watched you through this entire thread use logic as your cornerstone (despite disagreeing with your conclusions) and have come to respect your loyalty and dogged adherence to principle so please, apply that logic and recognize that your stance is incompatible with your alliance's actions. Just to make it clear, I'm not asking you to declare on these people now, I'm asking you to explain to everyone (but especially yourself) how GRE can engage in a moral crusade that is so clearly prejudiced and narrow minded.

Ooooo...so that's what they mean when they say flipping you the bird!

Oh, Joe, you know you always overestimate... O.o

It's a tiny bird.

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='09 May 2010 - 10:47 PM' timestamp='1273463204' post='2293171'] If IRON is permitted to escape their clear wrongdoing with nothing but token reps then the entire cyberverse is wronged. That is the entire basis of moral absolutes. It's a shame that Gremlins are the only ones willing to put themselves are risk for this important endeavor. I with everybody would fulfill their moral obligation to stand against IRON's clear aggression. [/quote] It is also a moral absolute that vigilantism is wrong. GRE has taken it upon their shoulders to decide that the punishment determined by the ONLY party entitled to make that determination i.e. C&G. You do not speak for me nor do you speak for a majority of posters in this thread and as such your ability to claim to be acting for the benefit of everyone is nothing but empty rhetoric. [quote name='Matthew PK' date='09 May 2010 - 11:24 PM' timestamp='1273465453' post='2293242'] Ok, then in that case we will have to agree to disagree. I am personally of the opinion that IRON demilitarizing doesn't significantly impact their ability to make war on GRE; this would be different is the military situation were different. [/quote] I thought weakening them in order to improve your negotiation position was the whole reason for demilitarization?

SNAFU has 15 so far...

Dance, dance, dance. Dance, dance, dance all night long...

[quote name='Jesse End' date='06 May 2010 - 04:13 AM' timestamp='1273137195' post='2288845'] I think I know a reason for that: It was convenient for Gramlins have one member of high-gov offer what appeared to be an official policy (terms) in a show of cooperation, then when IRON actually agreed to it, which Gramlins didn't expect, Gramlins backed out using their technicality of exclaiming that it wasn't official, consequently continuing on with their indefinite war while attempting to blame it on IRON. [/quote] I agree that, that is the most likely scenario, but I'm just can't help myself in pointing out Matthew's inconsistencies! LOL

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='05 May 2010 - 11:18 PM' timestamp='1273119520' post='2288665'] Official government policy is made with votes. GRE has [b]always[/b] been this way and GRE has [b]always[/b] had to deal with people not understanding the difference between talking and official policy. You'll have to forgive us all for forgetting to say "This is not official unless voted on" every other sentence. [/quote] Why would IRON/DAWN assume that a government member bringing them terms was not official i.e. had already been voted on? Unless you change your policy of not having anything writing, there's no way to believe that what they are being told is official.

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='05 May 2010 - 08:21 PM' timestamp='1273108884' post='2288404'] No; reading comprehension. I am 1/3 of a body which can request the removal of government. [/quote] Again, you question my reading comprehension. When you state that you are one of 3 people in an alliance of 50 who can request the removal of government, that indicates that you are a in a position of privilege which in most alliances would be considered government even if you are not actively dictating policy. You continuously state that you don't know the specifics of the terms, but are mandated with watching over the government and making judgments on it's operation? Makes your job kinda tough if they won't tell you what they're doing doesn't it? So, let me apologize for not being able to understand GRE's unique definitions of basically every term used in inter-alliance communication within this game let alone how you internally define yourselves. That is why I ask for clarification.