The Overtime Accords

[chefjoe]

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1305227238' post='2710768]
They liked them for other reasons. I like GOD outside of the crazy terms and such they try to impose.
[/quote]

Its things like the above that are !@#$@#$ up this world.....

You(and not just 'you' personally but 'you' as in the DH crew in general) state you disliked their actions, just not enough to tie any consequences to them and will continue to back their play thru your continued relationship of ties(which is how they were able to do the BS in the first place). If you truly disliked what they did so much you would make sure they could not use you or your friends again in the future to the same ends...

Edited May 12, 2011 by chefjoe

[Azaghul]

[quote name='Brehon' timestamp='1305227943' post='2710777']
Did you read or did you glance through? I am going to assume the latter seeing as no where did I say you were opposed to any use of peace mode. In fact I stated: "I don't mind that you (MK) didn't bring out the nations and I am not validating or invalidating any tactic, lets just stop all the rhetoric and just admit we used the same tactics." Thus I am saying your use of PM and our use of PM are legitimate with both governments using it and considering it. If you are reading more into that you are attempting to argue to argue and for no other purpose than propaganda. Let it go.

Did I quote you.. no.
Did I use your name... no.

Put down your bullhorn and stop acting like you are the only person posting. If you are speaking for MK, my above stands 100% valid and true. If you are going to tell me its not, then you are flat out a liar. If you simply misunderstood, then no harm or foul.
[/quote]
I'm not sure of how I play into this. I understand Ardus's position pretty well and it jives with my own.

The problem is that y'all are equating all uses of peace mode as the same.

Edit: I don't speak for MK on the terms but as I'm 2nd in charge of MK milcom, I do know what our intention with peace mode is.

Edited May 12, 2011 by Azaghul

[mrwuss]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1305225837' post='2710756']
Getting off the EoG list requires visiting the GOONS forums and performing whatever the individuals there (some not even nation rulers anymore) demand. If you fail to do this, you are subject to attack whenever/where ever GOONS sees fit. There is no provision for re-rolls being exempt. Indeed, the circumstances under which they will attack are left vague on purpose, exactly as was NPO's policy.


[/quote]


You, again, are quite incorrect.

Terms are mandated and approved by one person. Dr. Beefstupid.

While there are occasions, rare ones at that, which someone will get to step in and come up with terms. Those times typically, if not every time I can find listed on the section now, are done because of a personal conflict between the two people.

The second thing you are wrong about is getting off the EoG list. This doesn't happen. If you do something stupid enough (rogue for the most part) to make it to the best list ever made then you are pretty much going to be there forever. If your nation is deleted and you come back a new leader and don't bother running around telling GOONS that you are the person listed you will be forgotten about. We don't employ a bounty hunter who goes out sniffing, we simply don't care that much.

We tech raid, if bring in your micro partners (since we do not consider any AA under 15 players to be a valid alliance) then we will respond. Simply fighting back typically gets laughed at as we point fingers at the GOON being hit back and let them learn a lesson about punching someone smarter/bigger/etc than yourself.

We are not vague about anything, our policies are quite open and if you have specific questions then you are welcome to clear those up by contacting a member of our hard working FA team.

Don't contact me because I don't care.

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1305227238' post='2710768']
"[i]EZI is replaced by EoG and the extending of conflicts simply because the winning side had nation rulers who didn't feel like they got enough war[/i]"

You directly compared extended war to EZI. Also by your standards anyone imposing any kind of terms for peace is imposing permanent war. That's a stretch.[/quote]

Bad grammar perhaps as I was taking your words and making them fit my point. ChairmanHal gets a C- for that. Still, if you are implying that eternal war against an alliance is somehow a lesser evil, there are some Vox members who'd like to have a few words with you.

[quote]They liked them for other reasons. I like GOD outside of the crazy terms and such they try to impose.[/quote]

I don't care if GOONS thought that CSN makes the best creme-filled chocolate covered donuts this side of Heaven and coffee that would make angels cry. The timing implies endorsement. That your alliance congratulated GOONS on the treaty implies MK's endorsement. A stretch you say? Anyone not part of the Mushroom Hegemony would agree.

[quote]There isn't the same kind of rush to actively tie yourself to any alliance or ally of that alliance now.[/quote]

Simply saying that doesn't make it true. Even Ragnarok, which flushed most of its treaties down the toilet recently, is still at least indirectly tied to the Mushroom Hegemony.

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='mrwuss' timestamp='1305230413' post='2710803']
You, again, are quite incorrect.

Terms are mandated and approved by one person. Dr. Beefstupid.

While there are occasions, rare ones at that, which someone will get to step in and come up with terms. Those times typically, if not every time I can find listed on the section now, are done because of a personal conflict between the two people.

The second thing you are wrong about is getting off the EoG list. This doesn't happen. If you do something stupid enough (rogue for the most part) to make it to the best list ever made then you are pretty much going to be there forever. If your nation is deleted and you come back a new leader and don't bother running around telling GOONS that you are the person listed you will be forgotten about. We don't employ a bounty hunter who goes out sniffing, we simply don't care that much.

We tech raid, if bring in your micro partners (since we do not consider any AA under 15 players to be a valid alliance) then we will respond. Simply fighting back typically gets laughed at as we point fingers at the GOON being hit back and let them learn a lesson about punching someone smarter/bigger/etc than yourself.

We are not vague about anything, our policies are quite open and if you have specific questions then you are welcome to clear those up by contacting a member of our hard working FA team.

Don't contact me because I don't care.
[/quote]

Thanks for confirming the accuracy of my statements, even if that wasn't your intention.

Edited May 12, 2011 by ChairmanHal

[mrwuss]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1305230746' post='2710810']
Thanks for confirming the accuracy of my statements, even if that wasn't your intention.
[/quote]

No problem armchair policy critique making guy.


yeah, son, I'm double smug.

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='mrwuss' timestamp='1305230970' post='2710812']
No problem armchair policy critique making guy.


yeah, son, I'm double smug.
[/quote]

The cool part was were you more or less quoted word for word what NPO's actual EZI policy was in practice as stated by Moo...they rarely actually went after re-rolls unless they called attention to themselves.

EoG = EZI

Enjoy the smug.

[mrwuss]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1305231191' post='2710815']
The cool part was were you more or less quoted word for word what NPO's actual EZI policy was in practice as stated by Moo...they rarely actually went after re-rolls unless they called attention to themselves.

EoG = EZI

Enjoy the smug.
[/quote]

Let's ignore the rest of your post that was wrong and just roll with you being right, right?


You are awful at this, no wonder you practice so much.

[nippy]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1305231191' post='2710815']
The cool part was were you more or less quoted word for word what NPO's actual EZI policy was in practice as stated by Moo...they rarely actually went after re-rolls unless they called attention to themselves.

EoG = EZI

Enjoy the smug.
[/quote]

You're some kind of magickal scientist with words or something, Hal. Next, I want you to make zebra = symbiosis.

[Azaghul]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1305230688' post='2710808']
Bad grammar perhaps as I was taking your words and making them fit my point. ChairmanHal gets a C- for that. Still, if you are implying that eternal war against an alliance is somehow a lesser evil, there are some Vox members who'd like to have a few words with you.[/quote]
I'm not implying that eternal war is a lesser evil. I don't agree with the idea that war with reasonable peace terms on the table is eternal war.

[quote]I don't care if GOONS thought that CSN makes the best creme-filled chocolate covered donuts this side of Heaven and coffee that would make angels cry. The timing implies endorsement. That your alliance congratulated GOONS on the treaty implies MK's endorsement. A stretch you say? Anyone not part of the Mushroom Hegemony would agree.[/quote]
We don't tell GOONS who they can treaty, that doesn't imply that we endorse the treaty. I'm personally skeptical of CSN but I know very little about them except for the SF ties and their very poor performance on the DT issue. I trust GOONS though.

[quote]Simply saying that doesn't make it true. Even Ragnarok, which flushed most of its treaties down the toilet recently, is still at least indirectly tied to the Mushroom Hegemony.
[/quote]
Most people are tied by very loose ties to some extent. I won't deny that. But I don't think there's the same kind of pressure to develop stronger ties.

Edited May 12, 2011 by Azaghul

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Lusitan' timestamp='1305066655' post='2709786']
Well, I remember [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=15732"]this[/url] which was followed by [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=15735"]this[/url]. Mindless would be an exaggeration considering Xiphosis had a own agenda for that conflict too, but nonetheless a tool of The Orders.

EDIT: Actually, looking back on that war from a moralist standpoint, there's not one single person coming out looking good in the picture, from Archon ([url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=15784"]who supported the war[/url]) to Boris ([url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=15776"]who canceled a MDoAP after the attacks had started[/url]). TFD didn't move with the rest of CDT because we disagreed with the principles behind the war. The [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=15734"]CB[/url] is as bad as it gets and Illuminati had a grand total of 26 nukes against the 1500 the coalition assembled against them.
[/quote]
Invicta hit Illuminati because they were supporting a nuclear rogue at war with our leader, up to and including making threats against our nations fighting him. That's about as solid a CB as you're ever going to find.

You would know this if you'd actually bothered to login to the CDT forums at the time.

Illuminati had made a habit out of incredibly aggressive behaviour for quite some time, and had piled on the enemies. There were several people out there independently trying to get NPO to cancel on them; GOD simply got there first.

[quote name='Lusitan' timestamp='1305086235' post='2709964']
Illuminati? A deserter showed screenshots of Terry Howard discussing in their private government forums the possibility of helping GPA and turning against NPO.
[/quote]
It wasn't a deserter.

Terry Howard screwed up his forum permissions, and allowed foreign diplomats to see his government forums. IIRC it was a GOD diplomat who logged in, noticed this fact, and went looking.

[quote name='Lusitan' timestamp='1305086235' post='2709964']
Oh the crime of freedom of expression. They did nothing wrong.
[/quote]
They plotted war against their MDP partner. This is a good reason for NPO to cancel their MDP.

I mean, suppose that it was revealed that GOONS were planning on declaring war on Umbrella. You think there might be some treaty consequences there?

[quote name='Drai' timestamp='1305134662' post='2710165']
If you can't see the merits of not letting NPO declare down in NS on us, and instead forcing them to hit Umb's nations that are likely equal to or greater in NS, then you still have a lot of work to do in understanding simple strategies.
[/quote]
This is actually exactly the reason why our side adopted the strategy that you decried.

[quote name='Drai' timestamp='1305141406' post='2710200']
That's assuming you completely ignore the 6+ wars a lot of our top tier fought prior to this point in time (some of us were involved in 10+).
[/quote]
Oooh, ten whole wars. Wowie.

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1305152801' post='2710276']
Hiding nations in peace for the entirety of a war and limiting the overall number of wars that can be fought is.
[/quote]
Oh?

http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=164462

Acton is a peaceful nation. War is not an option since 1/17/2011.

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1305168574' post='2710422']
Do you see us trying to attack every alliance that doesn't have a treaty with us or an ally? Nope.
[/quote]
Here is a list of all sanctioned alliances that do not have a treaty with the Mushroom Kingdom or one of its direct MDP+ partners.

Green Protection Agency
New Pacific Order
New Polar Order
Random Insanity Alliance

Congrats. You left RIA and GPA alone. (I'd love to see you try something on RIA, though.)

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1305168574' post='2710422']
- An extended alliance to alliance war is not the equivalent of chasing people across re-rolls. EoG is not either.
[/quote]
Most so-called permazi sentences in the old order were shorter than the current war, or Bipolar, or Karma.

And EoG does chase across rerolls.

[quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1305171143' post='2710452']
The presence of MK nations in peace mode in no way diminishes Pacifica's ability to attack MK or conduct offensive operations.
[/quote]
I am falling out of my chair.

You just said "peace mode in no way diminishes an enemy's ability to attack."

Good sirs, I have a nominee for the Bob Sanders Memorial Award For Hilarious Malapropisms.

[quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1305171815' post='2710460']
OOC: People have lives. The people who comprise MK tend to have rather demanding lives. Especially around this time of year. Especially this year more than most. I would be "alarmed" if my members started shirking their real responsibilities for the frivolous rigors of this damn game.
[/quote]
So why doesn't this argument apply to NPO (and her allies)?

[quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1305173719' post='2710484']
Any attempt to compare MK to UPN is self-defeating. I'd encourage a different analogy.
[/quote]
Both alliances have had the pleasure of Samotopia as a member. There, comparison done.

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1305230090' post='2710798']
I don't speak for MK on the terms but as I'm 2nd in charge of MK milcom, I do know what our intention with peace mode is.
[/quote]
See, here's the thing. You've been arguing with our milcom on these forums and accusing them of lying about our intentions with peace mode. Given that, why should we believe that you're telling the truth now?

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='nippy' timestamp='1305231413' post='2710818']
You're some kind of magickal scientist with words or something, Hal. Next, I want you to make zebra = symbiosis.[/quote]

You are just so cute! Tell Mandozer, banned member, and flipwich I said hello, I know you'll be talking to them later.

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1305231858' post='2710822']
I'm not implying that eternal war is a lesser evil. I don't agree with the idea that war with reasonable peace terms on the table is eternal war.[/quote]

Forcing an alliance to send nations out of peace mode to face war against vastly superior opponents for 3 weeks is not much better than turning them loose in the woods to be hunted down by dogs and an armed posse. A few of them might even enjoy being chased and getting a few blows in, but it doesn't even get within the same zip code as "reasonable terms". Not so much because of the billions in damages those nations will take, but the complete and total lack of respect being demonstrated.

[quote]We don't tell GOONS who they can treaty, that doesn't imply that we endorse the treaty. I'm personally skeptical of CSN but I know very little about them except for the SF ties and their very poor performance on the DT issue. I trust GOONS though.[/quote]

You shouldn't...you really shouldn't...for a variety of reasons.

[quote]Most people are tied by very loose ties to some extent. I won't deny that. But I don't think there's the same kind of pressure to develop stronger ties.[/quote]

Then we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. But make no mistake, the same sense of working your FA policy around and with "the powers that be" is still very much in play.

[Brehon]

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1305230090' post='2710798']
I'm not sure of how I play into this. I understand Ardus's position pretty well and it jives with my own.

The problem is that y'all are equating all uses of peace mode as the same.

Edit: I don't speak for MK on the terms but as I'm 2nd in charge of MK milcom, I do know what our intention with peace mode is.
[/quote]

Yes, anyone (alliance) that uses peace mode as a tactic is valid. The fact that you don't like it is not relevant. Their reason/intention for that peace mode is theirs alone. The fact you don't "know" (but you can speculate) why someone else is using peace mode doesn't give you a right to say "my way and intent is okay, but yours is not." So yes, in the end any pm tactic used is based on the situation, need and viewpoints of the group employing it; thus all PM tactics are valid. Agreeable to the opposing, certainly not. Valid none the less.

I posted the snippets from the negotiations to show that we all use peace mode (and support it) in some fashion. Its all rather simple; we (NPO) were wrong for demanding FAN to come out of peace mode. We are now paying for that. You are wrong for demanding NPO to come out of peace mode. To attempt to spin the use of peace mode by a defensive alliance as being something wrong is a disservice to the community and the past we are all supposed to learn from. If an attacking alliance uses peace mode, of course the defensive alliances will call foul and you (proverbial) will attempt to justify. However, if the need fits your alliance, even that peace mode is valid. You play into this as you (and others) have been trying to state one use of peace mode is so vastly different than another and thus not equal or valid (when you disagree).

(added for humor) I do speak for NPO on the terms and I know our intention with peace mode That works both ways. If you want to know our intention I will (and have) share it.

[Letum]

[quote name='Antoine Roquentin' timestamp='1305186653' post='2710590']
I'm not sure why the presupposition that any of the same alliances will be major players in the next war exists. There are other rivalries and antagonisms that could easily leave many of them on the periphery. Assuming the world revolves around your group being avenged by some sort of white knight coalition is a bit of a stretch to take as a given. Sure it could happen and all, but saying it's destiny is kind of counting your chickens before they hatch.
[/quote]

I don't think it is vengeance in so much that history has shown us that the victor of a conflict *always* wants the moral high ground to justify that extra bit of pounding their opponent, and will thus look to the past history of the defeated party from which to seize an excuse. Thus, any past controversial action is used as "justification", even if that past action never had anything to do with the Victor now. In much the same way, quite a significant number of the people we fought in Karma did not fight us out of "revenge", but nevertheless used our past behaviour to their advantage in the PR fight. You see similar situations in every other large conflict since UJW too.

There is no such thing as "White Knights". Merely an endless stream of political opportunists.

[Drai]

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1305157877' post='2710312']
ITT:
When MK does it, it's [i]strategy[/i]
When NPO does it, it's [i]cowardice[/i]


[/quote]
[quote name='Banedon' timestamp='1305142225' post='2710206']
If the hypocrisy fits...

You and your allies castigated NPO and Legion for hiding our top tier in peace mode to preserve our strength. NPO finally comes out and you hide your top tier in peace mode to preserve their strength.

You and your allies said that you could not, and would not allow such a strategy to succeed. And yet you are now using the exact same strategy.

You are nothing but cowards, liars, and hypocrites.

Welcome to the New World Order.
"Do as I say, not as I do."
[/quote]
[quote name='Vol Navy' timestamp='1305144085' post='2710216']
NPO doesn't want it's nations torn apart by down declares from giant Umbrella nations.

NPO = Cowards

MK doesn't want it's nations torn apart by down declares from giant NPO nations.

MK = Strategists


Lord, MK couldn't serve up any more golden nuggets if they were drunken leprechauns at the end of the rainbow.
[/quote]
How do you not see the difference? Their side literally prevented wars from occurring earlier in the war. We are not preventing their upper tier from wars in the slightest as they still have plenty of targets to hit.
[quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1305176137' post='2710516']
You lack the desire to take slots. Umbrella and GOONS were assigned to do the heavy lifting. Thats why Umbrella with 2/3 your nations has the same number of wars as you. Its why GOONS have 3 times your wars and only a little over twice your nations. They have the desire to take slots while half your alliance sits in peace and the rest complain that MK cant get a slot and both your allies do far more fighting. I hope when you are done with them you ditch them a little more respectfully than your previous allies.
[/quote]
Flak attack (among many other MKers that I can provide names if you really want) has fought near maximum capacity so don't attempt ~cAlLoUtS~ that only have a slight chance of being accurate.
[quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1305234051' post='2710832']
Oooh, ten whole wars. Wowie.
[/quote]
Lol really? I don't think it would have been possible to get more wars than that in. You completely missed the point if you were going by sheer numbers rather than situational opportunity.

Edited May 12, 2011 by Drai

[HHAYD]

[quote name='Drai' timestamp='1305238305' post='2710880']
How do you not see the difference? Their side literally prevented wars from occurring earlier in the war. We are not preventing their upper tier from wars in the slightest as they still have plenty of targets to hit.
[/quote]

Wrong. NPO and [b]your alliance[/b] used the same tactic, for the same reason.

Damage control.

If NPO's top tier fighters are unable to hit your fighters, why let them sit in peace mode? Paranoid?

Edited May 12, 2011 by HHAYD

[Drai]

[quote name='HHAYD' timestamp='1305238938' post='2710890']
Wrong. NPO and [b]your alliance[/b] used the same tactic, for the same reason.

Damage control.

If NPO's top tier fighters are unable to hit your fighters, why let them sit in peace mode? Paranoid?
[/quote]
Yes but that wasn't the difference I was pointing out. I realize we were both doing this to prevent damage. However, when they did 'damage control' it prevented an actual war from happening. [u]Ours did not[/u]. Maybe people don't have a right to be angry at NPO if they really support a stalemate, but if that's the case then they certainly don't have a right to be angry at us.

I don't actually understand that last line. How could we be paranoid of something that is supposedly unable to hit us? If you want to clarify I can try and answer.

Edit: I just realized you were referring to our fighters sitting in peace mode, not NPO's. Now it makes sense. Well, they were able to hit our fighters were they not? That's sort of why we put them in peace mode... (to ensure that if NPO wanted to declare wars on us they would have to declare at equal or greater NS rather than downwards) I don't know where you were going with that.

Edited May 12, 2011 by Drai

[tamerlane]

[quote name='HHAYD' timestamp='1305238938' post='2710890']
Wrong. NPO and [b]your alliance[/b] used the same tactic, for the same reason.
[/quote]

Our entire top tier was sent to peace the minute NPO came out of PM. Not a single top tier nation not involved with a war is out of peace mode at the moment. Additionally, we sent the top tiers of Umbrella, GOONS, FOK, and TOP to PM as well so this war could be put on hold for another 3 months. HYPOCRITES ARE WE!

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Drai' timestamp='1305238305' post='2710880']
Lol really? I don't think it would have been possible to get more wars than that in. You completely missed the point if you were going by sheer numbers rather than situational opportunity.
[/quote]
You guys have been at war for months now; 10 wars is not an impressive number.

We've got nations with over three times that.

[Drai]

[quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1305240043' post='2710910']
You guys have been at war for months now; 10 wars is not an impressive number.

We've got nations with over three times that.
[/quote]
You completely missed the point again. I explicitly defined what I meant. I'll do it one more time though:

The fighters in the upper tier I am referring to who experienced 10 wars could not have declared any more. There were not that many targets in the upper tier but we declared at near-maximum capacity. Also wars are much more destructive in the upper tier. Now we are letting those who didn't fight as many wars have their turn.

[infinite citadel]

[quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1305240043' post='2710910']
You guys have been at war for months now; 10 wars is not an impressive number.

We've got nations with over three times that.
[/quote]

As do we, but they are in the lower tiers. You don't have nations with over 10 wars that continued to stay in the upper tiers. I know this because nearly every nation on your side that came out of peace mode above 60k NS was dropped to 30k or lower by the time their war ended, which left targets hard to come by for large nations.

Edited May 12, 2011 by infinite citadel

[Williambonney]

[quote name='Drai' timestamp='1305239600' post='2710901']
Yes but that wasn't the difference I was pointing out. I realize we were both doing this to prevent damage. However, when they did 'damage control' it prevented an actual war from happening. [u]Ours did not[/u]. Maybe people don't have a right to be angry at NPO if they really support a stalemate, but if that's the case then they certainly don't have a right to be angry at us.
[/quote]


Regardless, the difference still exists. And I don't think that the stalemate is why people are angry at you, but the fact that you all deemed it necessary to create the possibility of one in the first place. Claiming that any of this was our fault or doing is just completely ridiculous garble, the type a five year old would try to pass off when he/she gets caught doing something wrong.

[Drai]

[quote name='William Bonney' timestamp='1305240716' post='2710918']
Regardless, the difference still exists. And I don't think that the stalemate is why people are angry at you, but the fact that you all deemed it necessary to create the possibility of one in the first place. Claiming that any of this was our fault or doing is just completely ridiculous garble, the type a five year old would try to pass off when he/she gets caught doing something wrong.
[/quote]
I agree to some extent but I don't see how that makes us hypocrites, which are the accusations I was responding to. We would only be hypocritical if we were actually prevent NPO from declaring any offensive wars. All we are doing is making their offensive wars occur at a tougher NS range.

Edited May 12, 2011 by Drai

[Williambonney]

[quote name='Drai' timestamp='1305240797' post='2710919']
I agree to some extent but I don't see how that makes us hypocrites, which are the accusations I was responding to. We would only be hypocritical if we were actually prevent NPO from declaring any offensive wars. All we are doing is making their offensive wars occur at a tougher NS range.
[/quote]

No, that part does make you hypocrites, you Dow'd us based on the fear [b]we[/b] would DoW [b]you[/b], as your side has claimed several times by high ranking leadership from most of dh, although you've also tried to pass it off as some kind of revenge for things that never even concerned any of you. And its also a whole bunch of other things you do that does. You might not even notice it when you post, but I don't see why we should not be allowed to point that out without being persecuted for it. I guess I can't blame you though, you guys obviously can't get your act together.