Saber

[quote name='Hyperion321' date='18 February 2010 - 09:45 PM' timestamp='1266525920' post='2190142'] You have just as much power to end the war as we do. Surrender and pay the price for your actions. [/quote] As I've said. Instead of trying to fracture us and get us to surrender one by one so you can enforce any kind of terms you wish, offer a solution to end the whole conflict. This means everyone. Not just alliances that you find to be secondary targets and which just get in the way of your true goals.

Opening post was not very clear on what exactly our offer entails so I will explain it in more detail. Almost every alliance on our side is in this war because we came to aid of one of our allies. We are here and we are fighting for their and our right to [b]achieve peace[/b]. This statement and offer in it is our attempt at ending this war. [b]It is not an attempt to isolate and weaken other side so we can curbstomp them.[/b] It is not a plea to get us white peace. I know that my alliance is willing to fight on indefinitely if we must, and I know there are others too. This is an offer of ending this war that started in a manner that is so convoluted that even 3 weeks into it, all of us here are still running around in circles. [b]It needs to be emphasized. This is not an attempt to get a few alliances out of the war so we can gain an advantage. It is not an attempt to push down harsher terms on your allies even if the situation completely reverted and we achieved a 2:1 advantage. This is a genuine offer of peace, which will remain open throughout the conflict and which bounds all of our alliances to NOT push down terms on opposing alliances in any circumstances.[/b] Essentially it's a statement of: "Whatever happens, we'll give everyone on your side white peace, no matter what. We are here to defend our allies but have no further agenda". I have to also address accusations that our side was offered these kind of terms and rejected them. Yes, some alliances were offered separate white peace. But this is not nearly the same. [b]Huge difference is that our offer has assurances that we will not push down terms on any of opposing alliance regardless of circumstances [/b](this includes NO STALLING on our side in granting peace when requested). So, please stop accusing alliances of not abandoning their allies with no guarantees for rest of us. It is not proper. I also must mention that some of these separate white peace offers have become dirty. Alliances are being offered terms and threatened that if they do not take them immediately they will receive harsh terms down the line. Such tactics are classic divide and conquer tactics where the aim is to break us up and then handle us in parts. Pushing down harsh terms when you outnumber someone 10:1 is much easier than when it's only 2:1. We refuse to stoop down to that level, and we will keep our word. There is a way to end this war. Now it's your turn. If you wish to end this conflict as we do, contact us and we can try working something out. If you find our offer unacceptable contact us and offer your alternative for ending the whole war. We are open to suggestions. We have no interest in prolonging this war longer than necessary to achieve peace. But please stop with trying to break us up so you can enforce harsh terms on those that are left remaining. We do not appreciate such tactics.

[quote name='lebubu' date='17 February 2010 - 01:09 PM' timestamp='1266408555' post='2187442'] There are only so many slots that can be filled in a 200 man alliance. The NS drop would've been the same, even if they had 100 alliances on them. I know you just want to be snarky but please. e: spelling [/quote] Yours on the other hand...

[quote name='(DAC)Syzygy' date='17 February 2010 - 05:08 AM' timestamp='1266379693' post='2186987'] We are turning in circles Londo. Your main flaw is the idea that TOP declared on you because TOP hates you. That is not the case. A few members of TOP really dislike you. Very few truly hate you. You have to differentiate very carefully between the reason for entry, the way of entry and the choice of targets. They did enter the conflict as part of a 'side' from which they thought it would doing the right thing. (Polar & \m/ Conflict) They did enter how they did to gain a military advantage, because it was clear you would enter sooner or later on the other side *anyway*. (FirstStrike) They did pick you as target because they liked the idea of combining helping their side AND hitting someone they believe is dangerous at the same time. (Effectivity, Emotions) And that paints a complete different picture than the rather stupid "TOP hates us and wants our blood!" scenario. I have worked and discussed with TOP members, General Assembly and Government for many many years. When I say TOP as alliance doesn't hate you, you can take this as a fact. I have no reason to lie, I know both sides of the conflict pretty well and actually learned to respect both sides, each for their own strenghts and flaws. When I say they learned from what happened and it won't happen again, you can take it as a fact. This whole political desaster was an eye-opener for many and clearly showed even the usually silent ones the failure of politics around paranoia. And you can also believe me if I say: any hatred and wishes for vengeance and blood will only make it worse. You just add more blood and hatred to the fire, nothing more. For once YOU have the chance to make it stop, this circle of grudges and cold-war - use it, maybe you won't get it again and whoever leads the next big "coalition" might not be as reasonable as you currently are. Now you can decide if you want the keep the wheel turning or show a greatness they couldn't show. Repeat the concepts of revenge and paranoia which are *proven* to lead to nothing but failure many times now or be among the first to establish a new policy. Now, even while you might still believe it's better to beat down a possible future opponent when you can, keep in mind also the last fact: The more you beat them, the harder they get. And I mean that. From experience with TOP membership of a few years and countless facepalms, head-to-plates, emoragequits and whatnot. Keep beating at TOP and you won't break them, ever. Not ever. You forge them. You will take months over months in damages, you will turn the core of your alliances to wastelands and you won't get a penny reps ever. Not ever. Don't even dream about that. The chance of ever getting a single payment of reparations is straight zero and you have my word for that. They will neither pay anything nor surrender ever. And thats just the pragmatical view of someone who has reached everything Planet Bob can offer and has nothing to lose anyway. So, it's up to you what the history books will say. Many people miss the moment they had the chance to do something truly right, and look back in hindsight, moaning and asking themselves why they didn't realize it when the moment was there. I am just here to make you think if maybe you are in such a moment, and think about your next steps a bit longer. [/quote] Haven't had time to read the whole thread (will do tomorrow) but some very good posts. It's interesting to see it from the other side (your posts).

[quote name='Earogema' date='17 February 2010 - 04:56 AM' timestamp='1266379017' post='2186964'] EDIT: Saber got it below me. [/quote] The best part is that it was posted 20 days ago and that whole this time anyone really wanting to be inform himself knew of it. I even quoted Jyrinx's post expecting him to delete it. PS. It was quite funny to click post and see your post above mine. I was making my statement for a while and didn't see the argument be brought up. Funny coincidence.

[quote name='Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz' date='17 February 2010 - 03:35 AM' timestamp='1266374159' post='2186733'] I disagree that such communication couldn't have been made and your response doesn't really address the point of my post. I'll reiterate - regardless as to whether the negotiations were underway or had been concluded, anyone with the knowledge of the impending attack (regardless of whether it was as a result of OPSEC rumours or direct contact with the attackers), with the knowledge that negotiations for peace were definitely underway and having a genuine interest in avoiding the escalation of this war should have made contact with TOP and co. to inform them of the situation to at least try to stall or stand down the attack. [/quote] http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=79467&view=findpost&p=2151083 Chief Savage Man was informed by Jyrinx of STA that TOP and IRON will fight against them. You can read his post to Chief Savage in that thread (although I don't get what possessed him to admit to sending that PM). Also Chief Savage Man in the same thread that he peaced out because the larger picture was explained to him. Your post is hence very true. If there was wish for real peace it could have been achieved several times. However it was not, instead immediate propaganda was aimed at breaking up our coalition and isolating several key alliances. For what goal is clear to anyone.

[quote name='Snowbeast' date='16 February 2010 - 09:13 PM' timestamp='1266351202' post='2186025'] TOP is almost there. [/quote] MK also lost 42% of it's NS. Good job on putting us almost to 50% though.

[quote name='Earogema' date='14 February 2010 - 11:03 PM' timestamp='1266185030' post='2181313'] Well as per Saber's orders that's one less TOP nation to fight. What was de facto is now de jure. [/quote] Any order can be changed.

Panfilo is in peace mode as per orders from TOP Military Command and he won't be leaving when he feels like it but when we feel it is the best move in a military sense. After seeing this thread, we decided for the psychological effects that appear on our enemies due to him being in peace mode, we decided to keep him in peace mode through this entire war. Signed, Saber, Grand Chancellor The Order of the Paradox [img]http://i182.photobucket.com/albums/x116/alaska9808/Wrofsaber.jpg[/img]

[quote name='Denial' date='11 February 2010 - 02:19 AM' timestamp='1265851178' post='2173547'] Congratulations on the elections. It's nice to see the names of the people that will be signing TOP's surrender. [/quote] Thank you. Troll attempt failed. [quote name='Penlugue Solaris' date='11 February 2010 - 10:48 PM' timestamp='1265924935' post='2175551'] Probably not the best idea for someone who is going to be negotiating. They also shouldn't try to argue that MK was never blacklisted by NPO. That was a hilarious argument. [/quote] I argued that I never saw or knew about real blacklist. I've stated that several times and I am 99% sure that no one in TOP was ever told by NPO or instructed by NPO not to ally MK. Anyone claiming I knew about the existence of the blacklist, or that TOP knew about existence of it can come here and provide the proof. I challenge you. (I am talking about time when it was in effect, and some time later on). I will concede that I was not very informed on MK-NPO talks for significant time now, and I was not aware that it was proved beyond a doubt that it existed. When I was told about the evidence I immediately admitted I was in the wrong. The mistake comes mainly from the fact that I assumed that TOP as ally of NPO at the time would be aware of the said blacklist if it existed. Given that we knew nothing about it I assumed it did not exist. I admit I was wrong about that. I'm not one who won't admit I was wrong. But, my challenge stands. We did not know about it, nor would we support existence of such a blacklist. [quote name='Ejayrazz' date='12 February 2010 - 01:15 AM' timestamp='1265933731' post='2175877'] If you bring up Saber's negotiating skills, some of you should look at your own leaders. Seriously, people's double standards are starting to kill me. [/quote] No need to fall down to their "No u" level of posting. Majority of TOP electorate finds me best for the job. For me that is all that matters. EDIT: Damnit, forgot [img]http://i182.photobucket.com/albums/x116/alaska9808/Wrofsaber.jpg[/img]

[quote name='John Ron' date='10 February 2010 - 09:28 PM' timestamp='1265833696' post='2173079'] Sometimes temporarily overstretching is required to keep your opponents in nuclear anarchy so they can't redeploy while help gets out of nuclear anarchy. Aircastle was happy to assist. [/quote] Congratulations John Ron. To Aircastle and John Ron!

Thank you Paradoxians for trusting me in these interesting times. I look forward to communicating with alliance leaders on both sides.

[quote name='lebubu' date='08 February 2010 - 04:47 PM' timestamp='1265644077' post='2168755'] MK and CnG's involvement and the course of the war had TOP & various bootlickers not hit us, are subject to speculation at this point. We're dealing with simple facts here: 1. CnG was uninvolved on the battlefield 2. CnG was aggressively hit 3. TOP's declaration of war states that "For our part, however, much our reason to enter this war lies in our desire to defeat those who have shown time and time again, in public and in private, that doing harm to us is high on their agenda---and that, indeed, they would take advantage of any advantageous opportunity to do so." We have every reason to be concerned about the security of our alliance in the future and will continue this [i]defensive[/i] war until we feel that our attackers are no longer a threat to CnG and its web of allies. Anyone calling this a spin, has trouble dealing with facts. [img]http://thecastlehall.com/boards/Smileys/kickass/tipofthehat.gif[/img] [/quote] I must question that line of thinking. You cannot take us out as a threat unless if you give us no reason to consider you a threat. As things stand now you just continue to reinforce our belief, and at the same time destroy your alliance fighting potential. I seriously doubt that at the end of the conflict MK or CnG will be much more powerful than TOP. I must question how you intend to make us a non threat if we can fight longer, harder and more fierce than you can. And when all is over, we can outgrow you. From my perspective instead of pushing this agenda of "we must neutralize TOP threat" you should be looking for a way we can reconcile and avoid this in the future and that won't happen by curbstomping us while we curbstomp you. If you are truly concerned for your safety it's not way to go.

[quote name='Krack' date='07 February 2010 - 08:32 PM' timestamp='1265571143' post='2167145'] The [i]problem[/i] was it ... along with several other TOP decisions and actions ... made many of the other Karma coalition allies believe (justified or not*) that TOP's main concern during the Karma War was setting themselves up for the best possible post-war position (leading directly to this war) and not with winning the Karma War as quickly and decisively as possible so that the entire Karma coalition would take the least amount of damage possible. In other words, it looked like TOP didn't care how much damage everyone else took, as long as they earned themselves some meatshields for the next war down the road (which we're currently involved in). Now you're broken hearted because you guys tried to be opportunistic, one of your presumed meatshields screwed you, and now nobody feels bad for you. Oh well, you'll get over it. [size="1"]*I happen to believe it's justified[/size] [/quote] We did not like what Karma turned out to be because people who we were close with were telling us for months that if we moved away from NPO no one would jump at their throat and attack them. Then moment we move away slightly everyone and their mother starts hitting NPO. So no, we weren't happy with Karma and we were not going to be gung ho about killing people who were our friends and allies for years. Setting up for best post war position is totally wrong assumption. I am sure you can recognize that "antagonizing" Karma by not being willing participant was not best move. If we wanted best post war position we could have jumped in bed with all of Karma and destroyed the Hegemony. No one would be shouting at us post war like they did (look at MHA/Sparta/FOK/Gre, all who were Hegemony and who jumped on opportunity to take it down, they took no flak). [quote name='Steve Buscemi' date='07 February 2010 - 08:48 PM' timestamp='1265572137' post='2167168'] This is actually a great and accurate summation of many people's beliefs and it was too bad TOP didn't see it. What made it so bad is it's true. TOP didn't really want to join the Karma side. Everyone knew it despite TOP trying to convince people otherwise in stupid ways. Internally, Crymson has said he now regrets cutting non-nuclear deals with Karma's enemies, but TOP doesn't go as far as to acknowledge how much bad PR they created for themselves during that war. It was worse than TOP DoW'ing the GPA. I think TOP feels that they were the salvation to Karma, when the reality is they were bangwagoners looking for a better strategic position post-war. Ironic that Crymson/TOP shot down the Bastion bloc so quickly pre-Karma because TOP was so close to the NPO (without even telling the GA in TOP until after it was done). I guess they were such buddies to NPO it's fitting they get destroyed in the same way NPO did. By declaring a aggressive war and biting off more than they can chew. Sad TOP tried to hard to get easy terms for IRON that war. In fact a lot of TOP wanted to DoW Ragnorak at the time over how much they requested [i]for being attacked by IRON[/i]. Yea, it sounds stupid to even me. Heaven forbid you ask for partial damage reps when you are nuked several thousand times aggressively. tl;dr - TOP has been an epic failure on so many levels ever since the Karma war. [/quote] As I said, post war positioning accusation is totally wrong. Anyone can see that antagonizing a huge winning coalition is not way to position post war. Jumping in bed with them and being one of champions of Karma is (which we didn't do and some others did). We never thought and we do not think we were salvation to Karma. We are aware we played a minor role primarily in support of our allies (who asked us). Our involvement was no where near critical. About IRON terms, Gremlins entered against IRON and in the process broke Lux Aeterna (Citadel) by telling us they will get white peace for IRON. We were extremely upset over them hitting IRON but we felt better about it because they promised white peace for them (and quick end to the war). When that didn't happen we were obviously upset, mainly at Gre but also at others at war with IRON. I believe Gremlins also put extreme amounts of pressure for light terms for IRON, specifically because they entered saying they would. Bastion was shot down not before Karma war, but it just didn't materialize. Mainly because we saw faces of some members and alliance involved who when Karma war was on horizon dropped their masks and decided to become openly hostile to our allies and when we disagreed us. I distinctly remember being trolled like mad by some individuals on that forum. Also, Steve, I am truly amazed to what levels people who are failures in TOP go to troll us when they leave. You are but one in a long line of people who left on bad terms and proceeded to troll us. I hope you enjoy that esteemed company. Your credibility is non existent.

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='08 February 2010 - 02:28 PM' timestamp='1265635708' post='2168660']The various hyperbolic posts like this one do nothing to dispel the idea that MK actually [i]did[/i] want to deliberately damage NpO-TOP relations for strategic reasons. [/quote] I don't think it's in doubt that MK asked NpO for help so that NpO-TOP coalition is further weakened and that our sides morale falls. There is no doubt about that. It seems that 2:1 odds are not good enough for them. Now, this begs another question, treatment of NpO by MK and at the same time, treatment of MK by NpO. It does look as if both alliance spit on each other, with NpO making the first move when they okayed TOP/IRON strike and agreed not to activate treaties against us. Personally I really do not like the implication MK asking NpO to defend them brings, which is that MK will use you as a tool if it suits their interests but to be honest NpO brought it upon themselves with disrespecting their relationship before that. I however can speak for TOP that even though we can activate certain treaties with our friends and allies on the other side (against TJO for one) we will not do this because we do not want to use our friends as tools. We know we are on opposite sides and until the war is over we will not try to undermine their position through our treaties.

[quote name='Kijuna69' date='07 February 2010 - 08:12 PM' timestamp='1265569972' post='2167117'] Thankfully, for the sake of TOP's coalition, this is not a real DoW. The only people in combat with Polaris are folks from the MK side. Polar is doing a lot for your side, are you really that upset and feeling that betrayed over an OWF thread and one declaration? When they're in hundreds of wars for you? MK is the one that should be upset, if anyone. They'll probably lose a few million extra NS due to Polar's DOW on GOD whereas Polar saved TOP/IRON and company from a totally lopsided stomping. I'm sure MK would rather have a broken promise from Grub in exchange for real help from Polar in the war, or heck, even their neutrality. I understand TOP's anger but they need to look at reality and get over it, there is no betrayal. [/quote] Seriously we are not angry. We are just WTFing. I mean there are 18-19 alliances fighting TOP, NpO after 2 weeks of being nuked to kingdom come doesn't bring that much to the table. Especially not in this way as I seriously doubt that their members are going to be crazy to fight against their own side.

[quote name='Branimir' date='07 February 2010 - 07:10 PM' timestamp='1265566256' post='2167026'] How does one defend assassination of logic and reason,...hmm tough one. I hope its clear to everybody that you can not defend allies on both sides of an ad hoc coalitions war, by means of a war. If you do this, you are harming all of your allies as it is in the interest of MK that GOD does well in the war, as its in the interest of NSO that their war allies TOP and also IRON do well as well. I suppose no need to mention the black hole of logic which is opened when alliance accepts military support of other alliance and agrees to its plan of said support only to later on declare on them for exactly that military support it received and agreed upon. Yeah,...ok. No, valid defense is not-- they only declare one nation on nation war-- that actually makes it even more WTF moment as, why then declare in the first place and commit this monumental act of stupidity and trampling of your words? Your nations are already in anarchy and you already deployed on one side. In an ad hoc coalitions war, one can not fight for both sides. Not to mention, what can possibly go in the heads of your allies from the other side to ask you for military support in such a deployed position,...asking you to do a salto mortale and you accept smilingly? This moment and war truly will be remembered for all times, thank you everybody for making it possible [/quote] I really am struggling to find a plausible explanation for all Grub's actions in this war. Crymson's yes, Archon's yes, Ivan's yes, but Grubs, hell no. It really warrants an scholarly investigation of sorts.

[quote name='Lord GVChamp' date='07 February 2010 - 07:46 PM' timestamp='1265568381' post='2167077'] I understand, but Saber was giving the impression that one nation could easily make it a fair fight against 6 other nations, and that just ain't the case. A big blob of ill-prepared nations will be able to keep you in anarchy for a while when your counter-attacks shave off 1k infra a day. Coordination still seems pretty key to me, even if isn't key to anarchy-ing nations anymore. [/quote] No, I was saying 1 nation can incapacitate 6 nations (take away their ability to declare wars) and knock them out of fighting for 5 days following last day of war WITH absolutely no need for skill or coordination. Yes, that nation would suffer a lot of damage, but it's targets would be essentially locked out of the conflict for 12 days (7 days of war plus 5 days of recovering). This along with huge warchest make wars today really boring affairs. Yes I coordinate with my mates and yes we kick @#$% of our enemies but we are still in anarchy and can't redeploy. No matter how much better we are than sorry Spartan and Athenian attacking us.

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='07 February 2010 - 04:16 PM' timestamp='1265555797' post='2166826'] That was my point about 2 pages back before it got derailed onto Grämlins [/quote] So many posts, so little time

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='07 February 2010 - 01:51 PM' timestamp='1265547076' post='2166730'] I've no idea what Grämlins' decision to enter Karma (which wasn't for the reasons you say, but that's for another topic) has to do with where that discussion started, which was relating to TOP's refusal to sign up to the Echelon peace terms and instead to take a separate peace. Grämlins never had to make that choice because the other alliances on the IRON front were reasonable and did not demand ridiculous terms that we couldn't sign up to. [/quote] I really do not see the problem with us giving separate peace to Echelon. Our intention was to not force our opinion on how peace terms should be on alliances that fought alongside us and some of which had real legitimate concerns and interests in the peace terms. TOP on other hand never had any significant problems with Echelon and we just did not want to try and get peace terms we found acceptable. Our decision to white peace with Echelon came after Echelon was soundly defeated and after there was no chance at all of things turning around. We just did not want to sign on any kind of humiliating/joke terms as we really saw them as demeaning and beneath any alliance. First terms that were delivered to us were such and we just said we'll let others do their thing, the war is won and we'll separate peace. It was not done in a malicious manner. Instead I'd say our intentions were noble (not interfering in Echelon terms).

[quote name='Prime minister Johns' date='07 February 2010 - 12:17 PM' timestamp='1265541473' post='2166686'] Grub is no longer emperor as far as I know. [/quote] I asked in #Polaris yesterday and Pezstar told me Grub will stay emperor till war ends. So unless there are new developments and Polaris members state otherwise I'll assume Grub is still emperor of NpO.

[quote name='Steelrat' date='07 February 2010 - 02:29 PM' timestamp='1265549350' post='2166747'] @Saber, read my stuff about tactics in a nuclear war. There should be several topics/replies on TOP´s forum i explained in detail how to, from how important coordination is, timed attacks after a nuke to get through someones defence, to the difference between a shotgun and a sniper tactic in a nuclear war with pros and cons. IRON knows (Karma war) how it hurts if a shotgun tactic is countered by a sniper one. All i can say, tactics and timing in a full blown nuclear war are very important. Roughly you can say the damage one nuke does is the same all conventional attacks does combined. There is much more than just hit the nuke button, on a tactical and strategical level. [/quote] I'm well aware of that. Military command may have some challenges on their hands, but on a member level the tactics used have seriously been reduced. I also think that instant nuclear anarchy takes away from the ability to win a war through coordination and better waging of war. Nukes for me are the great equalizer.

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='06 February 2010 - 09:14 PM' timestamp='1265487254' post='2164987'] this i can agree with. though, Polaris stated that they would take on PC/\m/ by themselves. FOK then hit Polaris as did other alliances. where was MK in defense of Polaris? i could understand FOK, but what of the others who hit Polaris in that war? also, from everything i heard, Polaris agreed to TOP/IRON hitting CnG only if CnG entered the war. TOP/IRON conducted a preemptive strike, thus breaking their word with Polaris bout CnG having to have entered the war. as for MK and GR asking for help and Polaris giving it, it only proves to me that Polaris is a better alliance since neither of you helped Polaris out when they needed it. How many alliances are Polaris at war with now (VE, OV, and whoever else) and not a single DoW from MK or GR to aid Polaris... all those showing Polar hate, please, Polaris is attempting to honor their treaties. blame TOP/IRON for conducting an aggressive war instead of entering to defend NSO as even they stated the plan was for. the plan, from what i have heard was never a preemptive strike and to state such is ridiculous. why should Polaris honor their word when you did not honor yours? anyways, o/ Polaris and o/ Grub. it is sad to see you step down Grub. Good luck and congrats to Penguin. [/quote] Grub knew and agreed with preemptive strike.

[quote name='DaJoW' date='06 February 2010 - 08:30 PM' timestamp='1265484608' post='2164917'] I can understand the anger over all the peripheral stuff, but are people actually angry with us for honouring a treaty, and especially angry for doing so when it puts us in a horrible position? Why didn't we hit TSO? Well, the OP states fairly clearly that MK requested help with TOP, so we DoWed TOP. Being asked for help against one alliance and then honouring that by DoWing another wouldn't have made much sense really. [/quote] Problem is you have made a promise to not do exactly what you are doing now, and you are the one that CAUSED this in the first place. If you did not approve of our attack on CnG we would not have declared. It is not honorable to create the situation by giving a promise while at the same time ignoring two of your direct treaty allies, and then later to change your mind and decide to attack alliance you "deployed" on your allies. (Not literally but for all intents and purposes it comes down to the same thing). Do you not get how crazy this is? If NpO did not want our help, and did not want us to attack CnG we would not have attacked CnG so we can help you. Your Emperor's word (which should be worth something) was reason we entered and now you attack us because of it?. I literally cannot wrap my head about line of thinking in people who are defending Grub in this situation.

[quote name='Schattenmann' date='06 February 2010 - 08:32 PM' timestamp='1265484764' post='2164921'] So, would you say that Grub is, oh, a snake in the grass? [/quote] No, that's a honorary title given out to only the greatest members of TOP. Second best is El Diablo.