CaptainImpavid

Congrats and welcome to our new brethren, whoever they may be. /I knew Guru Order when they were thiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiis big.

I'm torn between my reluctance to cheer the GOONS on and my sheer, unabated glee at misfortune for salthius. If this turns out to have not been true I'll be forced to resort to arson.

[quote name='Fantastico' date='25 February 2010 - 02:57 PM' timestamp='1267128066' post='2203365'] Instead of speaking through proxies like yourself, maybe it's time for Fark to reconsider its boycott of this diplomatic venue? They even could start their own topic of what the NSO needs for peace with them, too. [/quote] I've only been in here because I saw an ugly trend of people accepting as true baseless accusations and incorrect suppositions against my friends and former alliance mates. I sought to correct that. Then I tried to offer earnest advice to Ivan about how to best approach people I still know rather well, and I admit my frustration at being run around in circles by him to have resulted in me washing my hands of him. Which I do of this entire thread now. If you need me, I'll be watching women's curling.

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' date='25 February 2010 - 02:17 PM' timestamp='1267125639' post='2203314'] Are you stating that Jim had a premonition in regards to those logs because he stated it was a surrender prior to my elaboration on the refusal of terms? As for going back, since we are not willing to do the review, does it matter? [/quote] We're back to the review, that was taken off the table now...what, almost 20 pages back? Let me distill the very essence of what I've been trying to convey to you (and to the silent readers out there who might actually be able to, you know, listen). Thus: [b]IF[/b] you want peace, and want a better peace offer than you previously were given, you need to do two things: 1)Cease making posts on the OWF that your opponents could/would take offense at. and 2)GO TALK TO THEM. Be prepared to accept compromises. Be flexible. If you [b]DON'T[/b] want peace, say so publicly, so that we can put an end to people lamenting that you're being kept in a war against your will.

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' date='25 February 2010 - 01:38 PM' timestamp='1267123329' post='2203258'] I never claimed that you all are. I believe the logs are fairly clear, regardless of my reaction within them, that Randomly Jim did not consider it a mutual peace agreement but did consider it a surrender. Since I can not surrender then I am left with continuing to fight as the only alternative at this point. [/quote] Ok, see that doesn't answer my question. I'll clarify. Those logs simply state that Jim was calling the peace deal your surrender because it looks like, from those same logs, you are trying to get out of it as a simple white peace without having to call it a defeat. You may not have meant it that way, and I don't know if you did or not, but that it how it looks. So, at any point did you or have you gone back and said "look it is really the connotation of the word 'surrender' we don't like. We by no means intend to claim you didn't emerge victorious in our fight, but we don't want to surrender. Is there some middle ground we can find here?" Did that ever happen? Is that ever going to happen? Or are you simply banking on the fact that, in all likelihood, you will irritate Fark to the point where such a compromise is no longer an option and you won't have to feel bad for not thinking of it earlier?

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' date='25 February 2010 - 12:50 PM' timestamp='1267120453' post='2203195'] Hmm, no. I claimed they never offered white peace. There is no rebuttal to that. Randomly Jim posting out of context logs that were later clarified via direct communication as something different than what was initially presented isn't even close. I haven't attempted to tarnish anyone. I have stated simple facts. I told Randomly Jim that he could speak with my subordinates and he refused to do so. I spoke to him and then he later lied to one of my subordinates telling them that he had not heard from me. I went back to him to discuss the terms being rejected by my alliance and he changed them into a surrender unilaterally and gave me an ultimatum. Afterwards he stated that peace was not an option. Shortly after that he lied to Grub and told him that Fark was planning to give us peace in order to "help them out". But that just wasn't true. Nothing I have stated is untrue. If it tarnishes him that is because it is applicable. I posted a simple and fairly common notice of cancellation and was somehow labelled as having done so as part of a plan to use it as a propagandist smear campaign against Fark. Do you even realize how absurd that sounds? So yes, I do concern myself with how my comments to Fark, especially Randomly Jim, who to me has proven himself either incompetent or a blatant liar, are percieved and used. [/quote] You claimed that Fark had never offered you "white peace like everyone else got" (paraphrase, though I can find the numerous quotes if you'd like) You were offered the same kind of "white" peace everyone else got. Holding out for a very specific and narrow definition of white peace which I honestly haven't frequently seen used (btw if your definition of "white peace" is everyone walks away and there is no victor, and you've always offered white peace, why does your wiki list most of your wars as "victories?") was something that was brought up after your original objections were debunked. With you it has been a cavalcade of "Well what about this?!" "Here" "Ok...but what about THIS?!" "Here" "Ok, I'll give you that but you didn't do THIS!!!!" etc. You descriptions of how things unfolded contradict not only what Jim posted earlier, but also some of your own previous claims, and also much of what I've seen discussed behind-the-scenes with SF. It may be that is largely how you have perceived it, or have come to remember it, but that isn't the same thing. You have, on numerous occasions, both here on the OWF and in IRC, stated that you speak for NSO and that no decisions are made without your approval. Can Jim then be to blame for wanting to wait to speak to you? I can't speak to the rest because I don't have 100% of the information and can't speak authoritatively, but I know Jim and I've come to be all too familiar with you, and I think I can suss out pretty well the truth, which lies somewhere in the middle of everything. I can say that at one point we (all of SF) were 100% expecting to peace out with you, that we we under the impression that you would be returning imminently to say whether or not you'd be agreeing to peace out...and you redeclared on Fark, which honestly surprised the hell out of us all. I know Jim, I've clashed with him (regularly) in the past, when I was still in Fark. He is brash, abrasive, blunt, in other words many of the descriptors you claim for yourself. However, he is not a liar, nor incompetent, and he knows when to but bluster and ego aside and get down to brass tacks when need be. Should you like him? I dunno, I frequently didn't, when I had to deal with him regularly. But is he respectable and forthright? Always. As to the "i didn't mean for any of this to happen, I made a simple cancellation thread" statements: you brought up Fark, and the lack of peace terms, and have done so in several other threads before this. The conversation took off here along those lines, and I can hardly credit you with being surprised that happened. You have gone back and forth since then claiming you want peace but are denied it, and claiming you don't really want peace but that it would be nice. All the while random and largely inane squabbling circles the field. My offer to work earnestly to use your earlier offer as a starting point to restart talks still stands. If you actually decide you DO want peace, and are actually willing to come to the table and discuss it healthily, please let me know. EDIT: just saw your logs. Ivan, I don't think those say what you think they say. At no point do you say "Ok, well we concede to defeat, but we don't want to surrender can we call it something else" and by the same token at no point does Jim say "we will only accept your surrender and seeing you driven before us and hearing the lamentations of your women." From those logs it looks like, to Jim, you were trying to be able to back out without admitting you lost, and Jim wasn't going for that, whereas you were focused on the word "surrender" and didn't bother trying to negotiate from there. So, as I said, have you even TRIED to find a middle ground? Or are we all still incompetent and liars?

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' date='25 February 2010 - 12:32 PM' timestamp='1267119373' post='2203179'] My alliance is fine with continuing to fight. While I think peace would be a good idea at present it isn't because I have people at my back begging me for it. Randomly Jim told me that when they were ready they would contact us. Since they are obviously the victors and obviously in control at this point me going back again after already being told no doesn't make a lot of sense and will just end up posted here as me begging Fark for peace or some other nonsense. [/quote] You're aware that Fark doesn't post here other than to make announcements or to directly answer accusations from others, right? So how would you approaching them to resume negotiations end up, at any point, being posted here as you "begging for peace" unless you posted it yourself? Nothing has been posted in here by them other than as a direct rebuttal of your claims and those of your members. You claimed you had never been offered peace, they refuted that. You claimed you had never been offered the same peace terms others received, they refuted that. You yourself have in numerous places tried to tarnish the good name of both Fark in general and Jim in particular. Funny how now you claim you won't try to communicate with them to settle the one (seemingly minor) issue that kept you from accepting peace when it was previously offered, because THEY might try to use it against YOU. "The wicked flee where no man pursueth?" Also, how is it that you won't talk to them privately but you are happy to talk about them publicly? (in the process serving to undermine all future peace efforts?)

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' date='25 February 2010 - 11:30 AM' timestamp='1267115649' post='2203109'] When I went back to inform Randomly Jim of that he stated that it wasn't up for discussion and that instead of it being mutual peace, it was our surrender. So again, what? [/quote] So have you at all even tried to go back and see if you can get him to agree to word that differently? I mean, it isn't like he was asking you to include the word surrender in any announcement or anything, simply that the beer review was a "surrender term," which could easily be simply the colloquial term used here for ages as a synonym for peace term. Did you at least even go to him and ask if he could agree to view it as a "concession," or whatever. I mean, USN managed to get to word it as "withdrawing from the field." Surely you could come up with something, especially since it seems to be a quibbling issue over what a particular term SIGNIFIES, and not even what was going to ever be explicitly stated in any announced peace agreement. I mean, something as nebulous as implied meaning can SURELY be worked out peaceably.

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' date='25 February 2010 - 10:45 AM' timestamp='1267112963' post='2203068'] Regardless of whether or not you are correct in your assessment what you don't acknowledge (know?) is that no peace is on the table at present to accept or reject. I have therefore offered what I believe to be a simple means of securing it without subjecting my people to what I consider to be undue humiliation. That is: The NSO admits defeat at the hands of Fark, GOD, GO and CSN. The NSO agrees not to re-enter. So far as I am concerned that is an offer on the table from us. I do not expect it to be accepted but it is an offer just the same. [/quote] A nice offer, and one that two weeks ago would I am sure have been met eagerly. Now, given the ways in which you have, in Fark's eyes at least, slighted their every effort at finding peace, it may not be met so warmly. I will, however, endeavor to see that the offer is at least taken seriously. If you are genuinely interested in peace and using the above offer as a starting point to negotiate, I'll be more than happy to offer my services to help mediate things. To start, as a compromise, in lieu of the beer review, I would ask the following. I have a dinner party this weekend and need to prepare a few appetizers (really). So if you would, assuming of course this would all be wrapped up by then, ask your members if they have any good recipes to provide, that would be greatly appreciated. Things involving melted cheese are especially appreciated.

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' date='25 February 2010 - 09:27 AM' timestamp='1267108266' post='2202996'] So it ultimately does come down to whether or not Fark et al want a perpetual war. My alliance has lost 70% of its NS. Because of the lack of staggers a lot of my people have already made it into peace mode, where they are rebuilding as best they can so that they can come back out at the lower ranges when needed. We are fine with fighting. We are not here complaining that the big bad alliances are picking on us. We are simply acknowledging that we want the same treatment others that entered via treaty obligations received and I can't really figure out how anyone on the opposing side can state that we don't "deserve" it when that really isn't part of the equation. We have fought a clean upfront battle from the very beginning. We took steps to assure that our allies that entered on our behalf gained peace and we will continue to fight so long as it necessary to achieve our stated aims, which isn't victory, it is survival. [/quote] Thank you so very much, Ivan, for perfectly prefacing the points that I was returning here to make. Let us cast our minds back a bit, shall we, to another situation in which an alliance faced a "perpetual war." If you all recall FAN (hi FAN) and their...spot of bother, shall we say, with NPO, there came a time where they adopted tactics that some would say, and many of you in here today DID say, we not conducive to attaining peace. They were belligerent, offensive, and rude to their opponents. They, of course, did these things with more humor and style than NSO is managing, but they had, shall we say, similar attitudes towards their opponents. But there is one big, glaring difference. FAN, for the most part, adopted this attitude once NPO had redeclared on them for "terms violations" and FAN had, by their own admission, [b]stopped seeking any sort of peace agreement with NPO[/b]. That's the kicker. Ivan is acting now, and more or less flat out admitting in his post above, that he is not interested in a peace agreement. (except on his terms, which seem to be nebulous and ever shifting.) He is not interested in compromise, not interested in attending negotiations, not interested in "taking terms seriously." What he does seem interested in is trying to lead his alliance into a perpetual war situation despite the good-faith efforts of his opponents to find a peaceful resolution. Let me state now, for the record, that NSO will only fail to achieve peace for as long as they refuse to come to the table with the intention of actually, you know, negotiating. Showing up, making demands that you be treated like [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=81162]everyone[/url] [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=81565]else[/url], and then storming off in a huff when you are is not what is generally understood as expert statescraft. If you don't like what is offered, make a counter proposal, not a stormoff. As I believe I said earlier, you may not like what we ask, you may not even like us, but we are NOT being unreasonable here. We are not refusing to offer or grant peace, merely refusing to be manipulated through lies and parlor tricks into being the bad guy. You say that you've conducted a clean fight, which may be true, especially since the mechanics of war rather limit other options, but you haven't conducted a clean peace negotiation, which is, and will remain, our only bone of contention.

This utter nonsense about the beer reviews serving no point other than to humiliate an opponent is...well I already said utter nonsense. Completely ignoring the fact that it has been what, 8-10 pages since it was made abundantly clear that particular term is no longer even on the table and so continued discussion is more or less moot and highly suspect of being borderline retarded, there are a few "truths" being tossed around that stem either from ignorance or deliberate attempts at misdirection. The beer reviews are supposed to be a fun way of letting an opponent gracefully admit defeat. No forced apologies for whatever misdeeds the public at large would lay at their feet, no embarrassing prostrations. Just a simple beer review that, if all goes well, offers two former combatants to socialize in a non-blowing-the-crap-out-of-each-other setting. Honestly, I'm told there was some discontent in Fark that NSO was even asked to do beer reviews since they didn't deserve the honor, so to speak. So we have the purpose of the beer reviews. Now let us move on to the issue of Fark trying to shove the beer review down NSO's throat. Go back and read the logs posted by Jim 10-12 pages ago. The ones where he details this whole process. Peace was brought up, the beer review offered as a term (for the reasons listed above) and then Fark heard nothing back after several attempts to contact Ivan. Then they hear on the OWF that Ivan has a counter proposal, the health food review, and, despite being blindsided on the matter and having the diplomatic process co-opted for a publicity ploy, agree and continue the discussion in good faith. Fark and NSO agree to go to their respective allies to verify that this would be acceptable...and Fark never hears from Ivan again until he once again brings the whole mess up on the OWF. None of that really sounds like Fark trying to cram a beer review down NSO's throat to humiliate them. I imagine that if they had gone to Fark privately, as a continuation of the peace process that Ivan apparently wasn't all that committed to, and said that the review was unacceptable because it was degrading, it would have been all too easy to come to some other agreement. But instead it was latched onto as some retarded tool for Ivan to bring to the OWF and make it sound like Fark wants to keep NSO in eternal bondange and that they want to make Terry Howard viceroy of NSO. Fark, nor anyone else, wants to keep NSO in any kind of eternal war. We simply insist that, as part of any peace process, NSO deals in good faith, rather than subverting the whole thing as a mad OWF publicity stunt. As I said. Utter. Nonsense.

[quote name='Lennox' date='24 February 2010 - 03:58 PM' timestamp='1267045324' post='2201960'] No, surrendering is the act of admitting defeat. Therefore you have already contradicted yourself. [/quote] [quote name='Ivan Moldavi' date='24 February 2010 - 04:47 PM' timestamp='1267048255' post='2202040'] An admission of defeat, at least to me, is not the same as surrender. A defeated army can still fight, albeit poorly. The NSO has been thoroughly defeated in this conflict. It is impossible to claim otherwise when facing 12 to 1 odds. It simply is. That isn't the same thing as accepting terms that are different from what I was initially told would be available to me though and it isn't the same as just giving up and surrendering. If we are destined to be in perpetual war, then we will simply be ankle biters indefinitely, or until I am couped. [/quote] Yo Lennox, might want to check out the official talking points handbook real quick.

[quote name='Rebel Virginia' date='24 February 2010 - 03:05 PM' timestamp='1267042159' post='2201881'] [color="#0000FF"]Oh, I get it now. NSO was disrespectful to you? Sure you've been much more volatile and quite frankly started whatever bad blood there is between you, but because NSO didn't act timid and bow before you they clearly must pay the price that comes with not respecting your authority. You know, I am pretty sure that if the situations were reversed that the NSO would not be so petty with you as you are being with them.[/color] [/quote] Ah yes, it was us who publicly threatened the other with war over a stupid, minor incident that could have been quietly and amicably handled. It was us who continued to snipe and make insulting comments about them in every one of their threads. It was us who consistently insult the other and call them a terrible alliance. It was us who labeled the other the "D-Bag Front." It was us who routinely lied to the rest of the world about the circumstances of our communications. We are humbled and contrite, oh great one! Please teach us, that we might learn better to coexist with our brothers!

[quote name='pezstar' date='24 February 2010 - 02:39 PM' timestamp='1267040593' post='2201858'] Fark didn't give out the same generic peace offer to everyone. Some had to do beer reviews. Others didn't. [/quote] Either way NSO isn't/wasn't being singled out. I'll ask you this, to put things a different way. NSO expects Fark to treat them like all Fark's other opponents were treated. Is it not reasonable, as the flip side of that coin, for Fark to expect NSO to treat them like all Fark's other opponents, then? It all comes down to the fact that one's actions and outcomes do not exist in a vacuum. The each influence the other. Fark, and CSN, and GOD, and GO, and anyone else fighting NSO are well within their rights to say that mercy and generosity given will be in direct proportion to the respect and civility received. Simple as that.

[quote name='pezstar' date='24 February 2010 - 02:03 PM' timestamp='1267038449' post='2201813'] No. All of Fark's other opponents did not have to do a beer review. NSO is not asking to be treated nicely. Their requests now are the exact same as they were at the conclusion of the Npo-\m/ conflict... they simply want white peace. [/quote] I will reword, MOST had to, and therefore NSO isn't being treated "differently." [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=81565"]only one I could find on short-attention-span notice.[/url] You may not agree with Fark's requests, but they aren't doing it out of spite and they aren't being totally unreasonable.

[quote name='pezstar' date='24 February 2010 - 01:50 PM' timestamp='1267037636' post='2201795'] Yes. We did hash it out reasonably and move on. But that's us. NSO feels that Fark has been unreasonable with them since the beginning. Fark seems to feel the same way about NSO. NSO is a belligerent, rude, combative, and pedantic alliance. They always have been and always will be. That they continue to act like themselves during a war is no reason to refuse to grant them white peace. If they were a quiet, go with the flow type of alliance who behaved belligerently during a war, that's one thing. They're not though. They are conducting themselves as they always have. They are steadfastly true to themselves and their beliefs. They believe they deserve the same white peace granted to some other alliances. I still don't understand why that can't happen. It's not a matter of "Up yours, give me better." It's a matter of "We entered this war in defense of allies, citing treaty obligations to do so, and we will not be punished for that. White peace." [/quote] Yeah but the problem with that is that saying "hey, we're not just being jerks NOW, we're ALWAYS jerks, treat us nice" doesn't really fly because, regardless of why or for how long, they're still being jerks. You don't deserve to be treated the same as a more respectable alliance just because you have a HISTORY of being objectionable. As said earlier, all of Fark's other opponents had to do a beer review, so how is NSO being treated any differently? As far as I can tell NSO wasn't being treated differently at all until they started demanding NOT to be treated differently.

[quote name='Branimir' date='24 February 2010 - 01:30 PM' timestamp='1267036442' post='2201753'] And yours are quite clear by pushing for a humiliating peace terms for NSO. Just man up to it and go about your business. Do not waste our collective time. And about NSO lying about the peace terms being offered or not-- I leave that to NSO for response as they already did. [/quote] Please explain once again how something is humiliating when both parties will be doing the same thing. Or are you saying a beer review is more humiliating than a health food one? Would wine be better, or West Virginia ditch liquor? Is it that Fark was the only one posting a health food review? If so I will one up it, I'll offer a health food RECIPE in addition to whatever else is eventually agreed upon by other parties. /of course I make no qualifications of whether it will be GOOD or BAD health... //also, Branimir, if you reply again without addressing any of my points and simply reiterating your own schlock again and again, don't be offended if I don't respond. It is just that I find that kind of "arguing" to be a waste of my time. But hey, in your mind if you get the last word you win, so, cheers!

[quote name='pezstar' date='24 February 2010 - 01:09 PM' timestamp='1267035172' post='2201718'] That you're seriously planning on attempting to force terms on this alliance, [b]one who really has been nothing but honorable and admirable in their choices to do what they had to to protect their allies and friends[/b] speaks volumes about just how easy it is for an alliance who spent their early days being completely oppressed and in what looked to be eternal war from the very beginning to forget what it's like to have very little choice in their future once they have gained a modicum of power. For shame. [/quote] I will concede that your bolded statement is true, or at least that you could argue the point. However, their conduct on the battlefield and in the diplomatic arena has been far from either honorable or admirable. As an example I will contrast your own conduct while an opponent of CSN with that of NSO. In our DoW on STA, you yourself showed up to take issue with some of our reasoning, and I believe you and I hashed it out a little, and maybe not ended up agreeing with each other, but we were civil, made our points, and accepted the situation as it was and moved on. Whereas, on the other hand, NSO has been nothing but belligerent, rude, combative, and pedantic in their communications with us. They have, in fact, done a grand total of, adjusted for inflation, nothing at all to endear us to them. The difference between this situation and Fark's conflict with the GOONS in ancient history, are numerous. First amongst them being that when they realized that public outcries at injustice and brutality were not working, and we in fact counter productive, they SHUT THE HELL UP, stayed off the OWF, and humbly sought out their antagonists elsewhere to work out agreeable terms. And even then it took several months before peace of any kind was offered. Whereas NSO has been offered peace twice at least already. My personal opinion, and one that can carry no real weight given I am no longer a member of Fark, but one that I feel will hold at least kernels of accuracy, is this: Were NSO to cease making libelous proclamations on the OWF, were their members to cease finding any excuse to deride or antagonize or insult Fark members or her allies, and were they willing to actually sit at the table and compromise rather than simply toss offering back in Fark's face with a "up yours, give me better," they would VERY quickly see much fairer offers coming across the table. One's conduct towards others directly effects others' conduct back.

[quote name='Branimir' date='24 February 2010 - 01:02 PM' timestamp='1267034783' post='2201706'] That line would have some meaning behind it, if you dropped the beer review clause. If what you say is true, and you do not want to humiliate NSO, then how benign you see that clause to be is irrelevant as its only relevant how NSO sees it. If they see it as humiliating, forcing it on them is to try to humiliate them. If its a irrelevant clause to you, dropping it wouldn't be a problem would it? If you do not seek destruction of NSO which already lost big majority of strength they had-- at this point when they are being reduced to rubble-- you would back off and end it. To continue at this point is purely to completely destroy them. Maybe you should think about what you are trying to sell here. [/quote] While you bring up some interesting points, I feel I should point out that I didn't write all those OTHER words in my post for no reason. Especially those other words where I addressed what you are saying. (even before you wrote them!) This all comes down to a balance of desires. NSO wants peace, but they also want to not do the beer review. Fine, it is up to them to decide which of those wants are more important to them. We, the people fighting NSO, don't really have a strong feeling one way or the other on peace, since the war isn't really all that painful. We do, however, have a desire to not to let libel and smear campaigns go without repercussion. Before NSO lied, repeatedly, about not being offered peace, and made several other public statements that, on the surface, do not appear designed to endear us to them, leaving things at a simple beer review and a no reentry clause would have been one thing. Nixing the beer review would have been easily achievable, even. STA managed it by being civil and respectable. But rejecting relatively lenient terms, and then spitting in the faces of people offering them, and THEN asking for nicer terms, rarely ends in success.

Now, I may be mistaken, but hasn't every alliance Fark has been engaged with, or well near all of them, that has peaced out been asked/required to do a beer review? If so, then how is asking NSO to do likewise now "offering them the same terms everyone else got?" From the logs Jim posted, it looked like the beer review was going to be met with the reciprocation of Fark doing a health food review, so it isn't exactly like you were being degraded because your opponent was going to be doing THE EXACT SAME THING, a concession I don't believe they offered to anyone else. Is that the treatment that "no one else got" that irks you? That they were more fair and magnanimous with you than with anyone else, and more by far then they had to be? The jabber about Fark, CSN, GO, GOD, or anyone wanting to keep NSO in the war to hurt or destroy them is utterly absurd. However, given that we aren't being hurt as badly by NSO as they are being hurt by us, it IS true that we don't have quite the vested interest in peace that NSO has. They (apparently) desperately want peace. Us? Well, it would be ok, I guess, but it isn't making us sweat either way. And if NSO wants peace so much more they have to be willing to be more flexible. As I pointed out in the thread where NSO re-declared on Fark in defense of IRON, you can't simultaneously boast "we'll gladly fight to the last" and at the same time lament "oh it hurts us so bad you aren't playing fair!" Those songs aren't in the same key. I will reiterate for all those interested enough to listen or comprehend: CSN, Fark, et al do not seek the destruction of NSO, or get any other kicks at their humiliation. The poetic justice of their beating after months of swagger and libelous attacks on CSN was pretty sweet, but that enjoyment lasted all of a few minutes, after which our collective attentions were taken up with fighting our best on many fronts. NSO isn't, in our eyes, in any way special or significant except in terms of their persistent attempts to smear our names in public. To which, as Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Commonwealth of Sovereign Nations, my official response is: meh. You can think whatever you want about us, but propagating falsehoods will be met with, well, the truth.

A beer review isn't a surrender term. It [b]is[/b] an admission of defeat. There is actually a difference. An admission of defeat is just that. An admission of "Ok, you really whupped us, you win, let's call this off." This is what the vast majorities of so-called "white peace" declarations entail. A surrender is, in addition to an admission of defeat, a submission to the will of the victor. It is saying "you have vanquished us, we want out, but we recognize that we must bend to your whims and will to do so." No one (yet) is asking this of NSO. NSO has lost this war. No two ways around it. Trying to seek a simple "end of hostilities" where no one is officially the victor, simply for the egotistical and utterly transparent claim of being "undefeated" is, at this juncture, stupid and counterproductive. A "white peace" the way that NSO is trying to define it is something reserved for opponents who are so evenly matched that no clear victor is apparent, and for opponents who acquit themselves so well that they earn the respect, mercy, and approbation of their opponents. Sadly, for NSO, things are not evenly matched and they have spit in the face of every opportunity to earn respect or mercy. So now, they have to admit they lost. Not surrender, but own up to the reality of the situation.

some people, when they want to retire, go nuke rogue on a few nations. some people, however, BURN DOWN THE WORLD. /godspeed, Grub.

you all are just too closed minded and uneducated to see this mess for what it is. This is no war, this is a simulated microcosm of post-modern thought. Thomas Pynchon, you've been served.

[quote name='Corinan' date='05 February 2010 - 01:52 AM' timestamp='1265352757' post='2161021'] Hey I didn't force ya'll to use my avatar in your DoW. Nor was I the one to bring NSO up in this thread. Your terrible alliance is obsessed with the Sith, and more specifically, me. It's flattering though, really. I always enjoy seeing new members join my fan club. [/quote] Ok, all easily dealt with. Wicked, stop helping. Second, Corinan, honestly, I don't care if you have an issue with the Commonwealth, or want to come in and talk nasty at us in every thread. Just, you know, TRY HARDER. Your smack talk would embarrass a fifth grader. Put some effort in, be creative, make us laugh while we take a swing at you. I don't mind being disliked, but I cannot STAND to be disliked by boring people. It makes us look bad.

[quote name='Corinan' date='05 February 2010 - 01:29 AM' timestamp='1265351354' post='2160943'] Man, your terrible alliance is obsessed with me...... [/quote] Yeah, hi, welcome to our thread. A lesser alliance would find your relentless pursuit and feeble mocking of anything even remotely connected to us to be creepy and desperate, but I will choose instead to consider it an homage. As if, through your clumsy, mumbled, nigh-incoherent ravings lies the kernel of something pure, something acted out in elementary schools every day, in the pulling of a girls pigtails, the leaving of nasty notes in her desk, to the spreading of mean rumors about her. Something confused but sickly-sweet. What I'm trying to say, Corinan, is that if you would just ASK, I'd be more than happy to go to the prom with you.