Rayvon

Try leading it

I hope so. We don't need any little methheads running around here.

WHOA REBEL UP IN HERE

Gotcha.

Oh - the October 2 one .. Which is also expired ~48 hrs ago .. Curiosity settled (didn't know if there was something newer I wasn't aware of). /back to the gallery

Peanut gallery curiosity: the agreement from September? If so, 3 months has passed.

I was being nitpicky and trying to stay out of the specifics of the current situation while not knowing the entirety of it, I was only responding to specifically the part I cut out and quoted regarding the rogue definition. I admitted as such (http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?/topic/130061-the-protectorate-reaches-two-million-ns/&do=findComment&comment=3496995) while trying to assure you I intended you no threat or trying to be hostile. I was only picking up the ancient rogue definition discussion and speaking only towards the rogue definition discussion. Any hostility in my tones, are annoyances from Junka and his never ending sputum. FTW and NSO have no beef, historical or otherwise.

No. Case in point: NSO-Kaskus war; this was started off by Dilber, Kirsten and Joe "disrupting the progress" of Kaskus by going in and declaring on Smurf. They were not rogues, I sent them in after playing this exact game with Kaskus about declaring Smurf a rogue and them declaring him not a rogue. Their (Dilber, Joe and Kirsten) actions, by your definition, make them "rogues" .. My definition makes their actions an act of war which is what it really was. When you step on another leaders toes and label their members, it's not always going to be received exactly as you declare it just like my insistent declaration that Smurf was a rogue wasn't received. A rogue is someone who goes off on their own and takes action on their own without sanction from any recognized authority figure.

No. You can analyse till you're blue in the face. What I said in my first post was: "If it's sanctioned or accepted by the raider's government, it's not a rogue action. It's an act of war. It's not up to any leader to label another leader's member." .. Your analysis is flawed if it doesn't include my (or the leader of the alliance in question of the nation under review for rogue actions) input as to whether it was sanctioned or not. You can call someone else's member a rogue all you want -- but if the leader of that member comes from says they aren't a rogue, then they aren't a rogue and it's a government sanctioned action. Stop trying to pick skin that isn't there, take your little scorned feelings over my lack of desire to talk to you elsewhere. There was no animosity in what I said towards Canik or FTW. It was an on-the-fly commentary on the exact specific piece to which I quoted and commented at. If anything, I was implying to Canik that FTW had a road to action towards the alliance as a whole in that they were taking such exception to the 'rogue' label (condoning any actions that took place if they deny them so vehemently as rogue actions) .. You can keep trying to pick a fight between FTW and NSO though if you like, I'm sure you'll find Canik and I quite receptive to your attempts.

I'm looking right here: When I was talking about a conversation not going how you wanted, I was talking about your reaction there - and the fact that the exception was to the rogue labeling. Nothing more, nothing less. No threats, no anger, no trolling, no negative. You were in a huff over that discussion of the rogue thing, that's all I commented to: your reaction "this getting old .. please stop" .. It is how the conversation has went for you and exactly what I was referencing when I made a generalized statement and said it wouldn't go as planned if I were the one in Alonso's position (I'd be the one irritating you and making you say please stop if you came at me labeling my guys - it's my job to label one of my guys a rogue or to label them a member) .. You're reading too deep into words that aren't there if you're perceiving any threats.

Try harder.

No, no threat from me. You're trying too hard and not reading what's right there. Not everything is veiled, sometimes words are exactly what they are. If I wanted to make a threat I would in exact words - I don't do veiled threats nor do I have a reason to threaten you over this. The conversation I was talking about goes exactly how your post was that I pulled from. It was a generalized statement; you labeled his guy a rogue and he took exception. I said, generally speaking, if you label one of my guys it's not going to go as you plan -- referencing exactly the conversation you're having that's not going as you wanted. You're huffed up and onto 'this is getting old' ... Re-read the exchange, and take the animosity out of it. You're creating the animosity that isn't there.

I don't give a $%&@ who you think you are or what reasons you want to blame for why I don't want to talk to you -- I have no desire to have any exchange with you. It's you, not me. Reach out all you want, I don't want to hear from you. You seem to think I have some sort of agenda and you want to try to pull it in line with yours -- there is no agenda, I was speaking merely on the appearance of the exact point of which I pulled out and responded to. Take. A. Walk.

There was no threat. Yes I nitpicked, I literally picked out a specific piece of text and replied to it with "yes and no". The part where you stepped out of the thread to the age-old rogue discussion. Later when I said "when you label ... " I was tying into my first paragraph of the differentiation. .. And equating it to the reason you were huffy in your post I originally quoted [nitpicked] from .. Where you labeled his guy a rogue and he took exception .. Also Junka - stuff it. You don't know what you're talking about, you're just upset I'm ignoring your PM on this thread.

But you aren't, you made a blanket statement and said "when you tech raid an alliance it makes you a rogue" .. You didn't say "stoli's actions were rogue" .. You then doubled down on it and said that nearly every leader agrees with this .. I don't know the specifics behind stoli's story or who he spoke with before his "raids", but I do know if you try and label one of my members and throw it at me the conversation won't go as you hope it will ...

Yes and no. If it's sanctioned or accepted by the raider's government, it's not a rogue action. It's an act of war. It's not up to any leader to label another leader's member.

**Rayvon approaches the podium; peering out over the dwindling forum crowd he appears to be looking for a particular face. **A slight head nod and a chuckle, he walks away.

Not all of us have those feelings towards you, so yeah I am personally a little unwilling to entertain that line of discussion and would like the thread to end with little more. I was putting the information out there since the request only just came to make it official and clearing the air for third-parties.

Maybe you need to stick that medal where it doesnt shine. I said whats done is done. This thread provided information of cessation. Go live in the past all your lonesome. We are moving forward.

Very rarely access from my phone ... Sucks balls on mobile ..

One thing you seem to forget of the Sith, is the Order is essentially the Emperor. We all make our decisions for different reasons; to debate who of us is more wrong or right than our predecessors and successors is like debating which is more round - a tennis ball or a bowling ball. Personally speaking, I would have (and had at the time in private and pretty much so here on the OWF) told Grata to go $%&@ themselves. That dead relationship would not have guided my decision towards the living Kashmir relationship. Joe's connections were opposite of mine; that's his circle and his thing. Kirsten's circles were different of mine and different of Joe's. Going further back, YouWish's circles were different than mine and different than Joes and different than Kirsten's; going even further back LintWad's circles were different than YWs which were different than mine which were different than Joe's which were different than Kirstens .. I could continue this trend right back to Ivan if you wish ... What you can expect from one Emperor, you can not necessarily expect from the next. The Order serves the Codex; the Codex serves the Emperor.

2006 here too

Not where I would have chosen then or now, but yes.

For clarification. Considering how much question there was in the last war towards our relationship. Now it's done, now it's known, now there are no more questions.

Indeed. I was a very loud voice towards being by their side; but that's neither here nor there in the after effects. What's done is done.