[Announcement from The Order of the Paradox]

[quote name='Branimir' timestamp='1303136932' post='2692638']
Although already explained, issue from our side is of thrust as terms to which we must submit are specific. Moves like these, put to question possibility of giving basic thrust for this to work specially after the nature of unprovoked original attack on us.

That is why response to this DoW are what they are, for you, [b]the slower crew out there who dont/or dont wish to understand our concerns[/b].

Attacking during the closure of peace negotiations after the most stickiest of terms were agreed on, is as such so delicate for us because to agree to the stickiest terms we managed to agree to give basic thrust to our opportunistic attackers which now thrust is rocked. Additionally for the victorious party, this move in large is unnecessary, rather just a gross overkill for some statistical gain of spreading damage. While they are entitled to call all their little figurines on the board which they control, it all of the sudden puts a rather done deal of peace negotiation into an all of a sudden more complicated position.

As somebody said how this will speed up negotiations, what a missed notion, this only complicates additionally a done deal.

DoWing during the finish phase of peace negotiations. You can put a check on that now, top.
Man, m I glad I dont have to deal with the opportunistic rabble from the opposite side. Much respect to the all governing peeps on my side of this war.
[/quote]


The slower crew has a question. Why are you so concerned thrust?

[Announcement from The Order of the Paradox]

[quote name='Letum' timestamp='1303136527' post='2692635']
It's too bad your handler isn't LUE, because then we would already know their stance on breaking surrender terms.
[/quote]


Why don't we just ask Carpe Diem?

[Announcement from The Order of the Paradox]

[quote name='Letum' timestamp='1303135615' post='2692625']
So now you support the breaking of peace treaties?
[/quote]


I'll have to wait for my MK handler to answer that question for me.

Woof, woof!

[Announcement from The Order of the Paradox]

[quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1303106931' post='2692480']
So once you get NPO to come out of peace mode, is TOP going to declare on them as well?
[/quote]

Lets hope NPO doesn't disappoint


[quote name='Rainbow Twix' timestamp='1303123121' post='2692558']
I swear on a daily basis the other side makes me love NPO more and more.
[/quote]

Please oh please love them enough to join in and fight by their side


[quote name='Rainbow Twix' timestamp='1303126839' post='2692570']
Grow some and do it yourself.
[/quote]

Or you could grow some and defend your treaty partner (Legion)


[quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1303128355' post='2692576']
Considering the OP, I'll take that as a yes.

I can tell you this: Make that answer a "no" and make it SOLID if you ever want this war to end.
[/quote]

From my cold dead hands

[A joint CD, MK and TOP announcement]

[quote name='youwish959' timestamp='1301425987' post='2680053']
By MK's own admission, they were not at war with us, and the attacks that had commenced before the surrender amounted to nothing but accidents. New Sith Order was not at a state of war with the Mushroom Kingdom until the [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=99085&st=0&p=2643268&#entry2643268]23rd of February.[/url]
[/quote]

Right you are, the fact that "a state of war with the MK" wasn't realized until Feb 23 does not determine the start of the war. Even in that recognition of hostilities announcement your alliance addresses the fact that attacks had occured prior to that point, and you were merely recognizing the hositilities...

from the original CD peace agreement
"2. The parties of NV, GLOF, WAPA, Colossus, Quantum, AB, CD, TFD, NATO, TNG, TPC, and DDM agree to not re-enter on any point in the current conflict surrounding NpO or NPO. [b]These parties may defend against an alliance who [u]DoWs (or equivalent)[/u] against their treatied allies [u]after[/u] these terms are posted[/b]"

see the words underlined in the highlighted text.

1.no DoW (or equivalent)was posted by MK - since you only share a MDP how can CD then declare if no war existed?

That's right

2.hostilities occured prior to Feb 23 and infact before Feb 7 (when CD had been granted peace), the MK attacks against NSO amounted to a defacto war which you later recognize as such. therefor, hostilities which you recognized in your alliances thread: [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=99085&st=0&p=2643268&#entry2643268]23rd of February.[/url] were not the beginnings of the war/hostilities, merely a date at which you decided to recognize them.






[quote name='Varianz' timestamp='1301426058' post='2680055']
Hey, wanna try a little harder to be absolutely stupid? CD came into the conflict to defend their treaty partner who was being attacked. That's not coming in out of the blue. Coming in out of the blue is what your allies did in declaring on NPO


Actually, no. Your argument is invalid for the simple reason that the word "new" doesn't appear once in the surrender terms.
[/quote]


O.o did I touch a nerve? the fact is CD came in when they were obligated by other treaties not to.

and they came in volutarily because:

Mutual Defense of the Brown Trading Sphere
Should any signatory alliance be subject to an act of unwarranted aggression, the other signatory alliances are obligated to provide all reasonable assistance, both military or economic, [b]unless the assaulted signatory alliance is involved in the conflict via other treaties or through the actions of another bloc. In such a case aid is voluntary.[/b]

So yes "OUT OF THE BLUE"

as to your second point.

I will rephrase for the absolutley stupid(you).

But, but, but the terms stated "2. The parties of NV, GLOF, WAPA, Colossus, Quantum, AB, CD, TFD, NATO, TNG, TPC, and DDM agree to not re-enter on any point in the current conflict surrounding NpO or NPO. [b]These parties may defend against an alliance who DoWs (or equivalent) against their treatied allies [u]after[/u] these terms are posted[/b] , by your own admission "continue" refers to something that had commenced prior to some action (their original surrender) and is on going into the future afterwards . So CD should have kept out of the continuing war and remained on the sidelines as the terms dictated, so yes "out of the blue".

The word "NEW" was paraphrasing the intention of point 2 from the peace declaration in which it was meant the parties could rejoin if hostilities occured "after" the treaty was sign or MY GOD A "NEW" WAR WAS DECLARED!!! run for your lives

[A joint CD, MK and TOP announcement]

[quote name='youwish959' timestamp='1301423129' post='2680036']
It was not out of the blue. MK [b]continue[/b] their aggressive attacks on us, so a state of war was recognized.
[/quote]


But, but, but the terms stated "new" conflict, by your own admission "continue" refers to something that had commenced prior to some action (their original surrender) and is on going into the future afterwards . So CD should have kept out of the continuing war and remained on the sidelines as the terms dictated, so yes "out of the blue".

[A joint CD, MK and TOP announcement]

[quote name='Varianz' timestamp='1301421038' post='2680026']
Are you serious? CD isn't some backstabbing plotter- they had no plans on re-entering the war. I'm not really sure that you and your side should be complaining about cheap shots, seeing as you're the ones who randomly declared on NPO out of the blue.
[/quote]


Hey, wanna see two play that game?

Are you serious? Doomhouse/PB (ourside) aren't some backstabbing plotters -there were no plans of handing CD reps for their first forray into this global conflict (infact none were, the first time). I'm not really sure that you and your side should be complaining about reps, seeing as CD are the ones whom voluntarily re-entered the conflict and declared on MK out of the blue.

[A Statement from Doomhouse]

[quote name='LittleRena' timestamp='1300996542' post='2674910']
Does this count? http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=80948

Not sure if it qualifies as [i]bending over backwards[/i] per se though.
[/quote]

Have you reviewed the thread?

First, Feb 2010, just barely squeeking it in the 1 year time frame considering that the NPO war began end of January.

Second, NPO bending over backwards? When they were given a break due to world conflict which was out of the generosity of the G15. Even in the OP they managed to get a dig against GoD not a doomhouse member but definately "one of their kind", so I don't really get how they are bending over backwards.

Anyone care to try again?

[A Statement from Doomhouse]

[quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1300995932' post='2674894']

By launching this war, after NPO spent a year bending over backwards for you and your kind.

[/quote]


Examples please?

[A Statement from Doomhouse]

[quote name='Hadrian' timestamp='1300986717' post='2674752']
Took out the "what constitutes the top tier" argument because we'll go round in circles all day over that.

See here, you're making my argument for me. Yes, the top tier requirements are constantly shifting; the top tier NPO has now is far better than the one FAN had back then, [b]because[/b] [b]the parameters for a top tier nation two years ago were less than those which we have today.

[/b]That's why comparing NPO's high-tier nation abilities with that of FAN's VietFAN performance is wholly inappropriate.
[/quote]


So you can't refute my top tier arguement (Check)

you agree that the top tier is different today than 2 years ago; so why would utilize 50K NS for comapring FANs top tier from 2 years ago?

If you read what my posts as stated. I am comparing is the timeline of warefare, not the top tier strength or lack of or abilities.


I'll use caplocks so you can understand

COMPARING NPO TO TOP IN TERMS OF WILLINGNESS TO FIGHT IS NOT AS GOOD AS COMPARING NPO TO FAN IN TERMS OF WILLINGNESS TO FIGHT A LONG CONFLICT

[A Statement from Doomhouse]

[quote name='the rebel' timestamp='1300971566' post='2674640']
[b]TOP was/is a top heavy alliance so was able to be effective against CnG and Co top tier, even with that advantage and huge warchests in the main part, still only lasted 66 days [/b]
[/quote]


[quote name='trance addict' timestamp='1300973168' post='2674652']


1.We (TOP) "still only lasted 66 days and surrendered" [b]Bring out your upper tier and see if they last 66 days[/b].



3....[b]I suggest before making comparisons, you bring out your upper tier and then we'll start the 66 day clock.[/b]
[/quote]


[quote name='Hadrian' timestamp='1300979142' post='2674692']

[b]They [i][b]would[/b][/i] last 66 days[/b], possibly longer. Not only is NPO's upper tier actually larger (in number) than TOP's, but they also have been sitting in PM, taking no damage whatsoever, with exception to economic penalties (which, let's face it, at those levels, isn't a lot of damage).
[/quote]


[quote name='Hadrian' timestamp='1300985112' post='2674739']
You have inferred multiple times in your argument that NPO would not last past the 66 day mark. That is "bringing it up". And yeah yeah, I made a mistake, suck it up buddy.
[/quote]


"Brining it up" when I already showed you I was replying to a statement made by the NPO.

I clarified my postition to show that my point was a comparison of NPO vs. TOP timeframe in my opinion was overshadowed by a better comparison of NPO vs. FAN timeframe. Disagree if you wish, your opinion is yours and mine is mine (although I us "facts" and figures to support my arguments)

You make your idiotic statement as referenced in your quote noted above.

Then when your stupidity is highlighted you sweep it under the rug as a "mistake" "Backpedalling"?

Hey your free to disagree with my statements, but if your trying to claim I am wrong, could you try to use some logic/facts to back-up your statements.

[A Statement from Doomhouse]

[quote name='Hadrian' timestamp='1300984656' post='2674734']
Tech does not define a top-tier nation. It never has and never will.

50k NS is the low end of top tier. I know the range is constantly shifting, but it is fair to say that, at this point in time, the very minimum for someone to be considered top tier is 50k.

Now bearing that in mind, NPO instead has forty-three nations above and beyond that level. I concede that I do not possess VietFAN statistics, but I can assuredly say that FAN did not (and was not able to) maintain at least 43 50K+ nations during that period.
[/quote]


While Tech doesn't necessarily dictate a TOP tier nation it plays a significant role in helping to define the strength of an alliances top tier. Having a top tier infra heavy will have little value in damage output. Essentially a papertiger.

To put a nation in the top 5% takes 84K Nation strength at 50K they are barely hitting the requirement for WRC's a top tier staple in terms of nation build. You have your subjective view of the top tier, I have mine.


In one paragrach you state that the top tier is "constantly shifting" then in the next paragraph try to pass of FAN not having 43 nations with 50K+ Ns a full two years prior as a definitive statement of them not having a "top tier". Sorry but, again your talking out your ass without any facts. I would be hesitant to state the top tier 2 years ago was 50K, furthermore FAN at the time had ~100 nations so I concede that haing 43 top tier nations in the top tier would be difficult but 43/505 is 8.5% of their alliance in the top tier (given your level of 50K) so FAN could have had 8-9 nations in the top tier at that time (given the top tier could have been alot smaller than 50K)

[A Statement from Doomhouse]

[quote name='the rebel' timestamp='1300971566' post='2674640']
TOP was/is a top heavy alliance so was able to be effective against CnG and Co top tier, even with that advantage and huge warchests in the main part, still only lasted 66 days and surrendered paying substantial tech reps...

Whereas in this current conflict NPO and Co middle and lower tier are being effective against DH and Co hence the need of a mass of aid being sent out from the top tier and at this rate will of outlasted TOP's previous war.

My point is refuting your claim that the NPO side cant do long term warfare because they are no TOP, when its obvious that this conflict will go on longer than any war TOP has been involved.
[/quote]


[quote name='trance addict' timestamp='1300973168' post='2674652']
I have highlight a few words...

1.We (TOP) "still only lasted 66 days and surrendered" Bring out your upper tier and see if they last 66 days.

2. "NPO and Co middle and lower tier are being effective" with emphasis on "are" once your mid and lower tier nations run out of money (warchest), they will cease to be effective, all the while the money from our side is being funneled into our lower tier nations helping them to be effective now and in the future of this war.

3. "its obvious that this conflict will go on longer than any war TOP has been involved". TOP went 66 days in a full out war [i]with[/i] their/are upper tier nations involved. I suggest before making comparisons, you bring out your upper tier and then we'll start the 66 day clock.
[/quote]


[quote name='Hadrian' timestamp='1300983357' post='2674722']
Well trance brought up the 66 days thing and "total war"...now I know he's not in TOP and is in fact talking out of his ass, I'll give your argument more consideration in future.
[/quote]


Where exactly did "I bring it up"? I merely was refuting an NPO members post. The only one talking out there "ass" would be when you made a statement:

[quote name='Hadrian' timestamp='1300979142' post='2674692']
They [i][b]would[/b][/i] last 66 days, possibly longer. Not only is NPO's upper tier actually larger (in number) than TOP's, but they also have been sitting in PM, taking no damage whatsoever, with exception to economic penalties (which, let's face it, at those levels, isn't a lot of damage).
[/quote]

again, NPO's top tier being larger than TOP's which was shown to be a horribly inaccurate statement.

[A Statement from Doomhouse]

[quote name='Hadrian' timestamp='1300982605' post='2674717']
blah blah blah, I just open mouth and insert foot with my ramblings

And no, it wouldn't be more appropriate to compare to FAN because throughout VietFAN, they had little to no 'top tier' nations.
[/quote]

I would ask for you to back up your statement with fatcs, but they would just cloud the truth, wouldn't they?

My point exactly why NPO's 66 day warfare duration record whould be compare to FAN's during VietFan...

NPO has little to no "top tier"

1 nation + 10K tech
27 of 505 nations above 70K is a non-existant 'top-tier' in my opinion.

[A Statement from Doomhouse]

[quote name='Hadrian' timestamp='1300979142' post='2674692']
I know rebel has addressed these points, but I'd like to bounce on them myself...


They [i][b]would[/b][/i] last 66 days, possibly longer. [b]Not only is NPO's upper tier actually larger (in number) than TOP's, but they also have been sitting in PM, taking no damage whatsoever, with exception to economic penalties (which, let's face it, at those levels, isn't a lot of damage)[/b].


*incorrect klaxon goes off* NPO and co.'s lower/middle-tier nations are surviving quite well on that very same aid you guys are funneling through. It sounds kinda stupid but guerilla warfare tends to be easier when your opposition is being funded.


It is [i]because[/i] you went all-out that you only lasted 66 days. I understand it was a "pre-emptive" strike, but with no peace mode/war mode battle rotation, your defeat was inevitable and quick.
[/quote]


#1 "NPO's upper tier is larger than TOP's...

100K NS +; NPO = 9 vs. TOP = 15 advantage TOP

80K - 100K NS; NPO = 10 vs. TOP = 13 advantage TOP (albeit only slightly)

60K - 80K NS; NPO = 18 vs. TOP = 43 advantage TOP (a significant enough advantage to help the 60-80K nations?)

40K - 60K NS; NPO = 17 vs TOP = 27 advantage TOP

More analysis

NPO (505 nations) vs. TOP (148 nations)
Tech NPO = 400K (spread out over 505 nations)
Tech TOP = 546K

NAVY
NPO = 1804
TOP = 3509

Nukes
NPO = 2671
TOP = 2455

WRC
NPO = 110
TOP = 104



Would you care to explain how NPO's upper tier is larger than TOP's given that numbers don't suggest your bigger?

As to your other points, well we'll just have to see how long they can hold on, because as you have clearly stated, your upper tier has no plans on coming out. So my point again is why would you compare NPO lasting 66 days to TOP's war duration record? Would it not be more appropriate to comapre to FAN during VietFan, when they lasted well over 1 year.

[A Statement from Doomhouse]

[quote name='the rebel' timestamp='1300973727' post='2674658']
1. Well if our middle/lower tier can last over 66 days with very little internal aid because top tier is in peacemode, can outlast TOP who was mainly large nations all with over a billion, then what does that say?

2. That point has been argued to death in this topic, no point going in circles.

3. Like stated before TOP was/is a top heavy alliance and with their allies outnumbered CnG and Co's top tier, so why would you be in peacemode when you had the greatest advantage? Do you think if NPO and Co had the top tier advantage they would still be in peace? really your arguement is flawed.
[/quote]


1. It doesn't say much, TOP was involved in total warfare, the real war hasn't begun until your upper tier is involved, when they come out and last 66 days then we can compare.

2. No circles, plain fact, that you can't refute.

3. My argument is flawed? Your point was essentially "NPO can do long term warfare" I pointed out that what TOP did was warfare with all it's nations. What NPO is ingaged in isn't warfare, it is playing a waiting game. So you shouldn't be comapring TOP's 66 days of warfare with your 66 days of waiting. Maybe a better comparison would be to comapre NPO to FAN in the VietFan which lasted for FAN from Dec 2008 until April 2009.

[A Statement from Doomhouse]

[quote name='the rebel' timestamp='1300971566' post='2674640']
TOP was/is a top heavy alliance so was able to be effective against CnG and Co top tier, even with that advantage and huge warchests in the main part, [b]still only lasted 66 days and surrendered[/b] paying substantial tech reps...

Whereas in this current conflict [b]NPO and Co middle and lower tier [i]are[/i] being effective[/b] against DH and Co hence the need of a mass of aid being sent out from the top tier and at this rate will of outlasted TOP's previous war.

My point is refuting your claim that the NPO side cant do long term warfare because they are no TOP, when [b]its obvious that this conflict will go on longer than any war TOP has been involved[/b].
[/quote]


I have highlight a few words...

1.We (TOP) "still only lasted 66 days and surrendered" Bring out your upper tier and see if they last 66 days.

2. "NPO and Co middle and lower tier are being effective" with emphasis on "are" once your mid and lower tier nations run out of money (warchest), they will cease to be effective, all the while the money from our side is being funneled into our lower tier nations helping them to be effective now and in the future of this war.

3. "its obvious that this conflict will go on longer than any war TOP has been involved". TOP went 66 days in a full out war [i]with[/i] their/are upper tier nations involved. I suggest before making comparisons, you bring out your upper tier and then we'll start the 66 day clock.

[Why I laugh at alliances who ask for reps]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1299116769' post='2650297']
Penkala says you got less tech in reps than you lost during the delay. If you lost more than 20k tech in 2 weeks, my mind is blown--you must have been giving it away.
[/quote]


Cult of Justia TECH on Feb 23 = 70724
Cult of Justia TECH on Mar 1 = 52652

that is a [b]drop of 18072 tech in 1 week[/b]. Where may I apply for your tecg give away program?

[NSO Surrender]

[quote name='Greev' timestamp='1299036192' post='2649136']
I love all you with no life make fun of internet spelling and grammar and still play CN CN SUCKS NOW back in the day when I started in 06 and played till 09 its was decent then but please judge me and give me your worst as you can make fun of me fun of my post insult cuz at the end of the day i have a life like i said i quit CN cuz its gay nowz and if you all can read you would have saw that. So NSO your all retarded for letting me in GOONS OF DOOM thank you for all that comforting !@#$ you did. On a liter note MCXA I made MCCF anyone back in the day would know that. I was DEFIUS!!!! The guy making micro alliances and robbing people by having them donate to the alliance bank then got caught and quit and joind GGA! HAHHAAHHAA I AM MEGA SPY 9! WOOTZZZZZ MAKE FUN OF ME!!! LAWLS YOUR ALL RETARDED!
[/quote]


This post would have been so much easier to read without all the punctuation. Could you oblige an old man and edit your post.

[A call to those betrayed by Polaris]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1296846406' post='2619427']
yes, MK should know plenty about hypocrisy.



oh i know. the betrayal by MK on Polaris is much worse than any sort of screwing over of TOP/co by Polaris since MK was actually allied to Polaris and used Polaris to defend MK.

and others think that MK gives a damn about anyone besides MK? please. MK is mastering the art of using their allies for MK's own gain.
[/quote]


awwww I think someone needs a hug.

[Lennox the Weasel]

[quote name='King Penchuk' timestamp='1295553579' post='2586964']
U no how to read? I said I was going to enjoy myself.
[/quote]


U [b]KNOW[/b] how to spell?

[Lennox the Weasel]

[quote name='King Penchuk' timestamp='1295545426' post='2586663']
Lennox is a weasel. A dirty, lying, deceitful, repugnant weasel with an abnormal smell. I am sure he is also secretly a clown.

Despite the fact that war would have eventually happened, I dislike the way that the process was accelerated. Dajobo is a good friend and an overall good person, even if I haven't chatted with him in a year or so. It was a very distasteful selection for the aforementioned weasel to throw this good man under the bus, so to speak.

With this in mind, who is actually upset that there is a war? All the IC nonsense aside, I am happy to see something going on for once. Since the Karma War I have largely been disinterested in this game. I did not even pay attention to the Bi-polar War as it did not interest me for the most part. On average I would sign in to the main site once a week, pay my bills, and then go about the rest of my day. I rarely if ever checked the forums to see what was happening. Although the war continues to offer an advantage to PB, it is good to see that this war is much more evenly matched than the average crap I've seen since Great War 2.

So I am going to enjoy this. Insult a few clowns, call out a few weasels, and overall play CN before everything returns back to the usual ho-hum atmosphere. I hope you do the same.

-King Penchuk

Edit: Fixed a grammar mistake.
[/quote]


U mad?

[UOKMB war with GOONS]

[quote name='Heinlander' timestamp='1283868541' post='2445260']
[b]Its mechanically impossible for us to cover all your defensive slots[/b]. You're the ones with the bad math. If you wanted to do the most damage with your mighty armies you should have aimed better. Instead you're getting the full attention of our upper ranks and the excess is being greedily scooped up by MK, Umbrella and everyone else. By the time you reach our sweet spot your warchests will be depleted and your nukes will be used up. All sound and fury, signifying nothing.
[/quote]


False, to the point highlighted in the quotes.

I believe there to be 8 UOKMB members, which would total 24 defensive war slots.

UOKMB had a nation strength range between 23 and 43K. Within GOONS between the NS range of 24.5K and 53K there are 24 GOONs nations. All employing 1 offensive war slot, they could completely cover all of UOKMB's war slots. Just sayin'

[Hunt Notice]

[quote name='Locke' timestamp='1283830132' post='2444805']
Actually, if I'm reading the OP right he has 5 targets in mind.
[/quote]


I think your right, and I believe from the clue that the target is Haflinger....

Clue:
Berlin 1961-1990. Cranberries 1993

Deduction:
Berlin 1961-1990, the period of time which divided Berlin by the "Wall". Dividing Berlin could be cutting Berlin in "Half"
Cranberries 1993, they had a hit song "Linger"

Solution
Half+Linger = HAFLINGER

[MHA Announcement]

[quote name='Matthew PK' timestamp='1280958517' post='2401018']
I agree. The signature issue is between Ram and Peron.
[/quote]

A few questions if I may...

1. Whom within gRAMlins communicated acceptance of white peace to IRON?
2. Whom did they communicate it to (within IRON)?
3. Why did they communicate acceptance of white peace?
4. Did they communicate that Ramirus' signature should be excluded?

Also,

"3.1 Executive PowersThe Conclave is the political and representative government of the Grämlins. A 2:1 Decision is required to make a Conclave decision, if not specified otherwise.

The Conclave, consisting of:

The Judicator (Internal Overseer & Minister of Growth)
The Praetor (Chief Diplomat & Minister of foreign Affairs)
The Executor (Head of Military & Minister of Defence)

The Conclave has the right to:

1. sign treaties on behalf the alliance
2. declare war, peace or surrender on behalf the alliance
3. negotiate peace terms on behalf the alliance"

If those rights have been given to Ramirus (and the rest of the Conclave) should his signature not be necessary to any contract/treaty which your alliance is approving for public knowledge?