Veneke

Not every issue has stemmed directly from that, take the Heggo issue, and the general state of conflict going back and forth. I will admit that was what set our alliances at logger-heads at the very beginning. Your forums are still down for maintenance, but if I recall rightly, that thread ended with ye stating that ye had no interest in continuing relations at that current time. You've said the same not too long back (a page, two pages I believe). As for none from us... what utter nonsense. You'll recall the initial post I made on your forums, the one for Brown alliances? That was meant to clear the air in a frank and blunt manner. That went well... Then there was the removal of the ODP clause in AA, another attempt to mend the bridge between our alliances, what happened there? Ye didn't sign, and went off to try and create a new Brown treaty. Your inability to grant credit where credit is due to the 57th is one of the biggest stumbling blocks we've had to date, even ignoring the actual issues at hand. As for future relations, I believe this is currently being handled in private channels. I did in fact misread the post. That said, the notion that it is the 57th that "more often than not started the first fire" is completely absurd, unless of course you count getting annoyed over NSO's actions to be "starting the first fire", in which case you're probably right. Here's the thing I think you're not fully following: You go and do what you like, suits us grand. Don't act all shocked though if we throw a fit about it if we see an injustice being done. This bold new world free of hegemony everyone keeps going on about does not mean that you are free from the consequences of your actions. Be that recruiting from other alliances, ignoring simply courtesy measures when coming to a new sphere, or for that matter, any action. They all have consequences, each and every one of them. Best ye remember that, it'll save us having to explain these things every time something like this happens.

My mistake, I thought that it was in World Affairs (it would make more sense, as you said). I was just linked to the thread, so apologies for that.

Normally I would, but seeing as how its RV... Also I'm not arguing, I'm pointing out to him that he quite clearly hasn't read the thread. If he had, he would know that the 57th were called into it, and not that we barged in here insulting NSO.

Er... read the thread mate, then try again.

Indeed, but to claim you're not excluding the 57th, or willing to treat us as an equal alliance on the Brown sphere (as Ivan made abundantly clear a few posts ago), is still a falsehood.

My mistake, [ooc]the fact your boards were/are down didn't help[/ooc] and I accept the correction. You did indeed start the conversation. I'm curious though, since when has NSO regarded simple debate as "rude"? More to the point, I most certainly did not call anyone "delusional" for holding an opinion. I might call you daft, idiotic and so on, but delusional? I think not. [ooc]How the cyberverse can exist IC is still lost on me, for to call it such is to recognize the fact that it is not real. To put it bluntly. That said, I have no wish to have that argument to detract from a few clarifications I want to make.[/ooc] I'll take the whole idea of constructive debate and put it in a box so when I want to talk to NSO[ooc], even when it came to an OOC issue[/ooc]. Mech I believe answered the whole recruitment issue. By the way, that's not politics mate, that's merely common courtesy. Now, had we decided to create an economic treaty/organization and exclude you from it, well now, then you might have a point. The 57th has never done that though, and went out of its way to propose amendments to existing treaties so as to facilitate you. Oh, yes, of course. We're the ones here slandering and defaming ye. To be perfectly honest, nobody in the 57th would probably have gone near this thread had Owned-You and Youwish not brought it up, spewing all manners of garbage and patently false things. Which, in turn, provoked us into replying. Next time you don't want us to reply, don't go and poke us in the face. You don't want to include, that's your prerogative, but like I said, you can't do that and not claim that you're excluding folk to some degree. It just doesn't make sense. As for this "hate" business... that's a particularly harsh word. Wary, annoyed, a certain dislike for how you do things, all those aye. But hate? Hate's a bit strong. Even if you did try and recruit from us, generally try and belittle us and pretty much do you best to paint us as the bad guys of Brown. I'll point you again to the recruitment thing... ye may be being a bit too friendly there, and like an unwanted suitor, you're just annoying us now. We do leave ye alone, pretty much as best we can. We don't idle in your IRC, we don't really go to your forums and we don't call ye out on the OWF. Can ye really say the same? There's usually 1-3 NSO folk in our IRC, and (as seen in this thread) we're often forced to defend ourselves on the OWF in various NSO threads. Ye've buggered off our forums after the recruitment debacle, I'll give ye that though.

But not, however, to help run said programme. Unlike the offer you've made to other alliances on Brown. I don't recall us ever trying to impede your efforts on Brown, unless of course you count making the Amber Accords more open an impediment, then yes, yes we did impede you. Or perhaps you're referring to the Brown Econ boards? The only impediment there was something we all seemed willing to compromise on, until Heggo's actions threw the whole thing into the furnace. A clarification to a point you made there, it was I who started communications between the 57th and NSO last time, and then that died off. The last time NSO talked to us in any official capacity was I believe when Spoil came talking to us over Heggo's actions, and that was over a month ago. Or when we were told that NSO were starting up their own trade thing, but were unwilling to offer us terms on equal conditions with other Brown alliances. Before anyone gets up in a huff, I'm not complaining that they didn't offer us equal terms, that's their prerogative, but to do so and then claim that they aren't excluding anyone to some degree or another is ludicrous.

Having read the entirety of the thread, I'm just going to hail Avalon for sticking up for what they saw as a violation of their political neutrality with regards to the Purple Senate. You can spin this any way you like Stickmen (and their supporters), but the fact of the matter here is that you were caught badgering an alliance for their votes, what's worse, an alliance that is known for not partaking in Senate matters. Right, wrong or otherwise on the matter at hand, your FA team is either incompetent and incapable of doing research before they recommended this approach, or ye knew about it and decided to plough on anyway and now ye're suffering the consequences, or perhaps ye didn't bother consulting FA at all? Regardless, it seems a bit of a disaster really for ye. Oh, and fair play to Avalon for bringing this to the public light.

Happy Birthday. Ye're all like a second family to me. Wait, who's Erixxx?

I think you're not fully comprehending what respect actually means. Here: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/respect http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/respect http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/respect Respect revolves around the concept that you think what a person, does/is/stands for (etc) is something you hold in high regard. To continue your garbage man example, the work he does is useful work, but it is not something that you can hold in equally high regard with something that is substantially more impressive. Unless, of course, you're of the opinion that someone who collects bins is doing something as impressive as saving someone's life, solving world hunger, putting an arrow through a gold ring at 100 paces and so on. Regardless, the point and purpose of the OP is to establish whether this respect is earned or not, so unless you plan on holding everybody in high esteem (which you can't actually do, because how high an esteem you hold someone in is all relative), respect is given to people in varying quantities and the only possible way to establish that is through judging these people and awarding it, essentially making it earned.

Congratulations to two of the finest alliances in CN.... even if their love of gyrating dairy products is somewhat odd, or at least something we have to keep an eye on.

I never said whether I thought it was a good or bad thing, I was merely pointing out that it was an incredible feat worthy of respect. More so than someone who does nothing at all. There seems to be an inherent belief that respect and good works/being nice/etc are inherently related. You can respect the man who is diametrically opposed to you politically (read: your enemy) for a variety of reasons, none of this though means that he is nice, doing good works, or so on. Respect refers to admiration of what a person has accomplished, not a judgement on that accomplishment, but rather the work involved to undertake such a massive operation and the will to see it through. If said garbage man was, say, capable of putting an arrow through a gold ring at 100 paces, then he'd most certainly have my respect. Which brings us back to the point of the OP, is respect given, or earned. Freely admiring someone for simply existing isn't exactly praiseworthy (there are notable exceptions to this obviously, but the fact remains again that respect is therefore earned and not given freely).

I can't see how that makes any sense in the slightest, regardless of the circumstance. You treat everyone as equal, but surely the person who, to take an extreme example, solved world hunger in a practical and agreeable fashion, should be respected far more than a layabout who does nothing with his time at all. If you truly believe to the contrary, then fair enough... still think its a bit daft mind you.

Respect is earned. Courtesy is given freely. A lot of the debate here seems to be stemming from the fact that there doesn't seem to be common agreement on what "respect" is. Some people seem to think that respect is being courteous, while others seem to be under the impression that it means trust. The reality is that respect means neither of these things. You can respect someone for their achievements, you can do so without trusting them, or for that matter even being courteous or friendly to them. You could be a complete and utter tool to your enemy, and trust him not in the slightest, but you could still respect him for some achievement he accomplished. Respect is more akin to admiration than anything else, but not with the "feel good" quality that associate itself with admiration. Of course, you can further complicate the issue by taking the fact that "respect" is often used as a pseudonym for "honour". You can honour your enemies, much as you can respect them, without being courteous or so on. Also, on a point of interest, disrespect is not the exact opposite of respect, oddly enough. Seeing as how disrespect does mean a lack of courtesy...

CoIN as well lads... shame on you LP for forgetting them.

Congratulations to our friends in Silence, onwards to 3 million eh?

I rofl'd. Funny stuff BelAir, very funny stuff. Oh, and congrats on the treaty, but I think we all know that that's a side issue.

I like watching the game. As with other situations, the key seems to be giving Lord Panda a heavy stick and standing back. 57th Overlanders

Some people have a gift for stupidity, an almost mystic ability to withstand any form of logic. I just like the quote... 57th Overlanders

The human body can be drained of blood in 8.6 seconds given adequate vacuuming systems. Want to be part of a normal, run of the mill alliance, where the most exciting thing you do all day is collect taxes and pay bills? If so, then you'll want to be anywhere but here: 57th Overlanders

Look, Mal, I got no ruttin' idea. I was here a few years back, like I said. Pulled a second-story, stole a lot of scratch from the magistrate up on the hill. But things went way south. I had to hightail it. They don't... put you on a pedestal in town square for that. 57th Overlanders

It sounds like something this crew can handle. I can't guarantee they'll handle it particularly well, but… 57th Overlanders

"Vitelli's out of it. That bumblebee laid down arms at the first sign of inevitable crushing defeat, can you imagine such a cowardly creature?" 57th Overlanders

Two of the best crews in the 'verse, and that's the fact of it. Congratulations CoIN, CRAP.

Nobody was expecting you to bare all with your OOC issues. It would have been the courteous thing to do, especially as you were well aware of our intentions for quite some time, to at least let us know of the possibility that you would have been forced to leave. As I said, that was an option very briefly, and not really considered at all. I think it amounted to "Hey, why don't we stage a coup?" - silence - "roflmao". Aye, we could have stayed and ran for the various .gov positions and then made the changes that had to be made for BC to survive. The problems with this were manifold though. Firstly was the fact that it was unlikely to go the way it needed to, and then we would have been honour bound to stay in BC with no way to change the system we had in the first place. I was the most popular candidate for PM after you were CH, and quite frankly, I would have lost (or, at best, I was uncertain I could pull it off). It was too great a risk to run at the time, especially when another viable alternative presented itself and would you have sent the few people who did follow you back into the disaster that was BC's internal drama when you could have saved them all of that? The only thing I'm "painting" you as, is a leader who couldn't control his government, and was not likely to stand down, retire, or lose the next PM election (as it appeared at the time). The fact that I know these things now means little to nothing. There was information that I had to hand regarding our options, and I picked the best one that was available for me and mine. Faith in what? Browncoats? As an alliance, I most certainly did. It was neither the boat I had started out on, nor was it a more successful cohesive crew, instead it was filled with a squabbling government, a complete tool who did far more damage than he should have been allowed (Schatt), and led by someone who didn't seem able, or willing, to control the situation. Bringing back some pleasant memories could have been done without the attempted revival of BC. We could have talked about it here and set the record straight (though that clearly has not gone well), or in Durim's "Hail to BC - a fallen alliance" thread, or whatever it was called. I don't say I much care for how public this is, but if it makes you feel better, we can set the record straight on the old BC boards. I'll go and have a look if anyone is interested in putting a more official history together for this (instead of the current: this is what happened - no its not, this is" system we've got going in this thread). Who knows, maybe some closure on this would do us all a bit of good. People might actually be content enough to leave well enough alone then... maybe not. Still, if setting the record straight is something you're interested in, this would be the best place to do it.