Open Invitation from the SuperFriends

[kriekfreak]

[quote name='EgoFreaky' timestamp='1312734920' post='2774194']
I'll pass for now, i have honestly no idea and would have to go back on what exactly happened there. Hell i can't even recall around which time it happened :S
[/quote]

He meant the anime short stint war in which Xiph and Delta specifically (because they were tied to SOS) allowed SOS to declare NsO (who is an IAA treaty partner).

[Feanor Noldorin]

[quote name='Xiphosis' timestamp='1312448722' post='2771697']
"Yay, more folks TOP will try and throw at us." [/quote]
You think we want to attack you? What point would that serve? It wouldn't be a challenge, afterall, I command a brigade that is bigger than your entire alliance.

[MitchellBade]

[quote name='kriekfreak' timestamp='1312735133' post='2774197']
He meant the anime short stint war in which Xiph and Delta specifically (because they were tied to SOS) allowed SOS to declare NsO (who is an IAA treaty partner).
[/quote]
Actually, I believe Rush is referring to the fiasco that took place well before NsO's existence, check the Xiph's fanfic part.

[Rebel Virginia]

[quote name='kriekfreak' timestamp='1312735133' post='2774197']
He meant the anime short stint war in which Xiph and Delta specifically (because they were tied to SOS) allowed SOS to declare NsO (who is an IAA treaty partner).
[/quote]
[color="#0000FF"]No, this is another incident, many months prior (before the last big war too as well I imagine). I forget the details, but I recall that some insignificant IAA member made a comment about Xiphypoo that he took offense to, resulting in his declaring that IAA had to die. It looked for a few moments that there was going to be an actual war over it, as Xiphy had rallied his SF cronies.[/color]

[EgoFreaky]

[quote name='kriekfreak' timestamp='1312735133' post='2774197']
He meant the anime short stint war in which Xiph and Delta specifically (because they were tied to SOS) allowed SOS to declare NsO (who is an IAA treaty partner).
[/quote]

Gotcha..

SOS
NsO
Anime



I have to be honest so painfull as it is to admit, here goes: I SEVERELY underestimated the situation that was going on, and as a result did not pay enough attention. Something that could have cost R&R and XX dearly. Not my best time in CN.. But as a result any answer i give to Rush' question would be like tossing a coin. I'll leave it to others that didn't make my mistakes to answer it.

[kriekfreak]

[quote name='Rebel Virginia' timestamp='1312735504' post='2774201']
[color="#0000FF"]No, this is another incident, many months prior (before the last big war too as well I imagine). I forget the details, but I recall that some insignificant IAA member made a comment about Xiphypoo that he took offense to, resulting in his declaring that IAA had to die. It looked for a few moments that there was going to be an actual war over it, as Xiphy had rallied his SF cronies.[/color]
[/quote]

Oh my bad, never heard of that one before. Makes even more sense why Xiph would allow SOS to attack NsO later on.

[Rush Sykes]

[quote name='kriekfreak' timestamp='1312735133' post='2774197']
He meant the anime short stint war in which Xiph and Delta specifically (because they were tied to SOS) allowed SOS to declare NsO (who is an IAA treaty partner).
[/quote]

No I dont. I mean when GOD directly threatened IAA over an IAA member posting links to (and poking fun at) Xiph's OOC activities. (which , by the way, I found to be highly inappropriate and supported the members expulsion from IAA)

Edited August 7, 2011 by Rush Sykes

[EgoFreaky]

[quote name='Rebel Virginia' timestamp='1312735504' post='2774201']
[color="#0000FF"]No, this is another incident, many months prior (before the last big war too as well I imagine). I forget the details, but I recall that some insignificant IAA member made a comment about Xiphypoo that he took offense to, resulting in his declaring that IAA had to die. It looked for a few moments that there was going to be an actual war over it, as Xiphy had rallied his SF cronies.[/color]
[/quote]

You mean the harry potter thing?

Edit:

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1312735760' post='2774206']
No I dont. I mean when GOD directly threatened IAA over an IAA member posting links to (and poking fun at) Xiph's OOC activities.
[/quote]

Ah, yeah that one. OOC things are never cool, can you honestly blame someone for being pissed off when it happens? As for a war.. SF wasn't "rallied" as RV says, though noone was too happy about it all, we all understood his feelings about what happened though.

As for what Athens would do.. I suspect they would have defended IAA, especially if it was a member that posted those links. Most alliances will defend their ally even if they screw up, which is both annoying as the right thing to do most of the times.

Edited August 7, 2011 by EgoFreaky

[Alterego]

It was mentioned earlier by SF that Xiph was considered the front man of SF by outsiders and did a lot of talking on their behalf as a result. He seems to make major errors of judgement when angry and paranoid (he admitted a number of mistakes in this thread as a result of his temper and because of rumours) why did the other leaders in SF allow this arrangement to come about?

I’ve heard the other leaders are afraid to stand up to Xiph and anyone who does gets the Xiph treatment (plotting, rumour mongering, treaty cancellations etc) is this true?

Why did you attack the softest target (UPN)you had no treaty obligation to attack and ignore your SF ally? Would you let another member of SF burn and look for the softest target you have no treaty obligation to attack again?

[Alfred von Tirpitz]

[quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1312736060' post='2774210']
I’ve heard the other leaders are afraid to stand up to Xiph and anyone who does gets the Xiph treatment (plotting, rumour mongering, treaty cancellations etc) is this true?
[/quote]
LOL, Sorry SFers, i know this is your QnA and all but, this made me LOL. Xipho, you need to cut down on the brimstone dude, folks outside think everyone else in that chan pisses their pants when you come by.

[Omniscient1]

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1312734390' post='2774190']
My question to GOD specifically, but I would like to hear all of SF's members opinions on this....


Back during the GOD-IAA fanfic drama. What do you REALLY think Athens would have done had GOD actually hit IAA? And why do you think that.
[/quote]

Good times

[quote name='EgoFreaky' timestamp='1312735817' post='2774207']
SF wasn't "rallied" as RV says, though noone was too happy about it all, we all understood his feelings about what happened though.

As for what Athens would do.. I suspect they would have defended IAA, especially if it was a member that posted those links. Most alliances will defend their ally even if they screw up, which is both annoying as the right thing to do most of the times.
[/quote]

Umm I love SF, but I do remember staying up until 5 am because Xiph was going to hit the member of IAA and IAA was going to consider that an attack. So I don't see how you could say SF was never "rallied". Unless they weren't going to support Xiph. I also find that unlikely, because MA was definitely on board from what I understood.

[KainIIIC]

[quote name='Feanor Noldorin' timestamp='1312735401' post='2774199']
You think we want to attack you? What point would that serve? It wouldn't be a challenge, afterall, I command a brigade that is bigger than your entire alliance.
[/quote]

TOP is out to get youuu... ALL of you!

[Azaghul]

[quote name='Feanor Noldorin' timestamp='1312735401' post='2774199']
You think we want to attack you? What point would that serve? It wouldn't be a challenge, afterall, I command a brigade that is bigger than your entire alliance.
[/quote]
Plus we all know that TOP is reserved for Polaris.

[Robster83]

[quote][quote][quote]Giving them a good scare in the process was perhaps a bit childish but not more then that really.[/quote]

Unfortunately, it didn't even give us much of scare--I don't think anyone thought disbandment was credible. I think those who were being honest saw it for what it was -- wanting to inflict a few weeks' more damage on UPN (and have others incur damage -- see Arexes' correct summary above). In any event, it just very bad FA. It gave the OWFers that dislike GOD/SF something to harrangue you guys about and, more importantly, it alienated supposed "allies." The latter, I think, is coming back on you.

Anyway, I'm not one to hold grudges, so I, frankly, have nothing against you guys and have generally enjoyed the QnA.[/quote]

We pushed for UPN as a target, we pissed of people in the process to get you as our target and our only intend was to give you as much hurt as we possibly could. And though realistically R&R isn't an alliance that disbands others (nor do i think i could get our membership behind something like that) it's quite possible we where the first ones to state that desire.[/quote]

@Ego:

Out of interest, do you admit that the way you acted in the last war was irrational? Also care to explain why you held your grudge, when noone who 'wronged you' had/has any power and influence within UPN. Furthermore, do you still hold something against us?

Also do you agree that this whole "disbandment fiasco," putting your personal feelings aside, was a FA mistake for GOD/SF as a whole?

When are you going to appear on your radio show?

@Anyone who wants to answer:

If you had to name one player to win the "Most controversial player award." Who would it be?

Was there some sort of purpose for this thread being created? If so, did it have its intended effect?

Do you think any value should be placed in 'colour politics' or would you say it is a complete waste of time and resources?

Edited August 7, 2011 by Robster83

[EgoFreaky]

[quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1312736060' post='2774210']
It was mentioned earlier by SF that Xiph was considered the front man of SF by outsiders and did a lot of talking on their behalf as a result. He seems to make major errors of judgement when angry and paranoid (he admitted a number of mistakes in this thread as a result of his temper and because of rumours) why did the other leaders in SF allow this arrangement to come about?

I’ve heard the other leaders are afraid to stand up to Xiph and anyone who does gets the Xiph treatment (plotting, rumour mongering, treaty cancellations etc) is this true?

[/quote]

It's not an arrangement, it's something that comes naturally i think, he's the most visible person, so he's the one most people go to first and then assume he is the front man, it's something that keeps repeating that way. It was as such when i became SF delegate and leader of an SF alliance and it's something not easily changed, even now i make no illusions about being as well known as Xiphosis.

That's just wrong, if we where affraid to stand up to him we would have no ally that he didn't approve of (which most of us do). I remember more then 1 time having arguments with xiph so big that others had to step in because they feared it would only get worse. Same as any other, The biggest fights within SF i personally had where with Xiph and with Randomly Jim (when fark was still in SF). Oh and tempers could rise with Hoo as well (almost forgot you there bud XD). So yeah we stood up to him often enough, if you heard rumors from him about us, please share. If he's plotting R&R's downfall.. REALLY SHARE. As for treaty cancellations, he never threatened us with one of those, nor should he ever try so, i've a good patience and can handle conflict with allies pretty well, but cancellation threats during an argument is something i'm deadly allergic to and chances are 99% i would start a cancellation vote the second such threat is made.

[Quote]
Why did you attack the softest target (UPN)you had no treaty obligation to attack and ignore your SF ally? Would you let another member of SF burn and look for the softest target you have no treaty obligation to attack again?
[/quote]

Let me see, where to start.

[b]The UPN choice:[/b] It all started one war earlier, during Bi-Polar, a lot of things went wrong between UPN and R&R, seeing in my eyes we settled that score i'm not gonna expand on what exactly and leave it in the past if you don't mind. Suffice to say we had some real hate going on, our deployment in the second part of Bi-Polar was designed to pair us up with UPN again, but they went neutral. At that point we focused back on the rest of the war but I promised then and there UPN would be ours next time they went into a war. Luckily for us they attacked iFOK and iFOK had a treaty with CMEA who on it's own was no match for UPN and their only other ally was R&R. Plans where made, target lists distributed and fun little anecdote, one of the RoK delegate actually congratulated us on the fact we got what we had wished for for so many months.

[b]The RoK side:[/b] Then suddenly mere hours before our attack, we hear (from VE, not even from RoK) that RoK is gonna defend Polar, something that took all of SF by complete suprise, how that happened.. I can go around blaming people which does noone any good anymore, so let us just call it a communication breakdown of the worst kind. We reviewed our position, all our other allies where on the VE side (FOK in PB, INT through C&G, GO through FOK, GOD because of the VE MDAP, CMEA through iFOK etc. etc.) So we knew there was no way we would go in aggressively on the polar side, only in defense of RoK itself. RoK only got countered by SLCB and RIA jumped on SLCB, so that left only a joint strike with RIA on SLCB.. which if requested we would have done, but talk about overkill. So if we had decided to not attack UPN.. then we would only have taken SLCB at most and in the process let others down even more.

So apart from all that, should we have opted to go in aggressively on the RoK side we would have at least been at the other side then GOD. So there wasn't any way to not be on the other side of at least one SF alliance. Messy, yes, but also a plain fact. Therefor we decided to only act in RoKs defense and side with the side that contained all our other allies. Looking back the only other option would have been going neutral, but again that would have been letting everyone down instead of one ally. So yeah, not pretending it was pretty, but we where left few possibilities.

[Delta1212]

[quote name='Robster83' timestamp='1312738407' post='2774229']
@Ego:

Out of interest, do you admit that the way you acted in the last war was irrational? Also care to explain why you held your grudge, when noone who 'wronged you' had/has any power and influence within UPN. Furthermore, do you still hold something against us?

Also do you agree that this whole "disbandment fiasco," putting your personal feelings aside, was a FA mistake for GOD/SF as a whole?

When are you going to appear on your radio show?

@Anyone who wants to answer:

If you had to name one player to win the "Most controversial player award." Who would it be?

Was there some sort of purpose for this thread being created? If so, did it have its intended effect?
[/quote]
Is that most controversial player currently or ever? It changes, and most the controversial players in the game's history no longer actively play here, or else are using aliases.

The purpose was to have a dialogue with people, and as that has been going on, I would say so. There are plenty of motives that can be ascribed to starting this topic, and some of them have some level truth and some of them don't. What it mainly comes down to for me is that I've always found it worthwhile in some way to sit down and converse with people directly. I don't always know exactly what that value is going to be ahead of time, but it's very rare that it doesn't appear at all, and I've found this thread to be personally valuable so far.

[Robster83]

[quote]Is that most controversial player currently or ever? It changes, and most the controversial players in the game's history no longer actively play here, or else are using aliases.[/quote]

Ooops misread what you said. Nevermind.

Edited August 7, 2011 by Robster83

[Rebel Virginia]

[quote name='EgoFreaky' timestamp='1312735585' post='2774202']
Gotcha..

SOS
NsO
Anime



I have to be honest so painfull as it is to admit, here goes: I SEVERELY underestimated the situation that was going on, and as a result did not pay enough attention. Something that could have cost R&R and XX dearly. Not my best time in CN.. But as a result any answer i give to Rush' question would be like tossing a coin. I'll leave it to others that didn't make my mistakes to answer it.
[/quote]
[color="#0000FF"]You know, the more you say things like this (and this is not the first time in this thread that you have said something along these lines), the more convinced I am that RnR, at least, just passively sits by and lets others worry about their foreign policy for them.[/color]

[kriekfreak]

[quote name='EgoFreaky' timestamp='1312738791' post='2774231']
It's not an arrangement, it's something that comes naturally i think, he's the most visible person, so he's the one most people go to first and then assume he is the front man, it's something that keeps repeating that way. It was as such when i became SF delegate and leader of an SF alliance and it's something not easily changed, even now i make no illusions about being as well known as Xiphosis.

That's just wrong, if we where affraid to stand up to him we would have no ally that he didn't approve of (which most of us do). I remember more then 1 time having arguments with xiph so big that others had to step in because they feared it would only get worse. Same as any other, The biggest fights within SF i personally had where with Xiph and with Randomly Jim (when fark was still in SF). Oh and tempers could rise with Hoo as well (almost forgot you there bud XD). So yeah we stood up to him often enough, if you heard rumors from him about us, please share. If he's plotting R&R's downfall.. REALLY SHARE. As for treaty cancellations, he never threatened us with one of those, nor should he ever try so, i've a good patience and can handle conflict with allies pretty well, but cancellation threats during an argument is something i'm deadly allergic to and chances are 99% i would start a cancellation vote the second such threat is made.



Let me see, where to start.

[b]The UPN choice:[/b] It all started one war earlier, during Bi-Polar, a lot of things went wrong between UPN and R&R, seeing in my eyes we settled that score i'm not gonna expand on what exactly and leave it in the past if you don't mind. Suffice to say we had some real hate going on, our deployment in the second part of Bi-Polar was designed to pair us up with UPN again, but they went neutral. At that point we focused back on the rest of the war but I promised then and there UPN would be ours next time they went into a war. Luckily for us they attacked iFOK and iFOK had a treaty with CMEA who on it's own was no match for UPN and their only other ally was R&R. Plans where made, target lists distributed and fun little anecdote, one of the RoK delegate actually congratulated us on the fact we got what we had wished for for so many months.

[b]The RoK side:[/b] Then suddenly mere hours before our attack, we hear (from VE, not even from RoK) that RoK is gonna defend Polar, something that took all of SF by complete suprise, how that happened.. I can go around blaming people which does noone any good anymore, so let us just call it a communication breakdown of the worst kind. We reviewed our position, all our other allies where on the VE side (FOK in PB, INT through C&G, GO through FOK, GOD because of the VE MDAP, CMEA through iFOK etc. etc.) So we knew there was no way we would go in aggressively on the polar side, only in defense of RoK itself. RoK only got countered by SLCB and RIA jumped on SLCB, so that left only a joint strike with RIA on SLCB.. which if requested we would have done, but talk about overkill. So if we had decided to not attack UPN.. then we would only have taken SLCB at most and in the process let others down even more.

So apart from all that, should we have opted to go in aggressively on the RoK side we would have at least been at the other side then GOD. So there wasn't any way to not be on the other side of at least one SF alliance. Messy, yes, but also a plain fact. Therefor we decided to only act in RoKs defense and side with the side that contained all our other allies. Looking back the only other option would have been going neutral, but again that would have been letting everyone down instead of one ally. So yeah, not pretending it was pretty, but we where left few possibilities.
[/quote]

I feel like this is a correct representation of the truth.

[TECUMSEH]

EgoFreaky:

I wasn't doubting RnR's hate for UPN nor its motivations during the last war. My point was (and remains) that we weren't particularly "scared" with the "disbandment" talk. I knew it wasn't credible for a host of reasons, none of which are worth going into. Others on OWF made a big deal about it and beat up Xiph about it, but it wasn't me (or UPN).

Anyway, I'm glad that RnR's ill will toward UPN is largely a thing of the past. I'll let you attend to the more pressing issues.

[EgoFreaky]

[quote name='Omniscient1' timestamp='1312736755' post='2774214']

Umm I love SF, but I do remember staying up until 5 am because Xiph was going to hit the member of IAA and IAA was going to consider that an attack. So I don't see how you could say SF was never "rallied". Unless they weren't going to support Xiph. I also find that unlikely, because MA was definitely on board from what I understood.
[/quote]

Fair enough, let me rephrase it, we weren't on high alert just yet and felt there was still place for a diplomatic solution. Many things can be said about Xiph, him being one to blindly rush into a war without taking a minute to think isn't one of them even though it may seem so from the outside.

[quote name='Robster83' timestamp='1312738407' post='2774229']
@Ego:

Out of interest, do you admit that the way you acted in the last war was irrational? Also care to explain why you held your grudge, when noone who 'wronged you' had/has any power and influence within UPN. Furthermore, do you still hold something against us?

Also do you agree that this whole "disbandment fiasco," putting your personal feelings aside, was a FA mistake for GOD/SF as a whole?

When are you going to appear on your radio show?

@Anyone who wants to answer:

If you had to name one player to win the "Most controversial player award." Who would it be?

Was there some sort of purpose for this thread being created? If so, did it have its intended effect?

Do you think any value should be placed in 'colour politics' or would you say it is a complete waste of time and resources?
[/quote]

Though question.. Do i feel it was irrational.. yes and no. Looking back at the Bi-Polar events it still makes me furious, so no. Looking back at the VE-NpO war, i saw a different UPN, so in that regards yes. But i think apart from the forced "apology" which looking back was futile and childish, i think the terms reflected my sentiment in that. If we had treated you as the UPN we hated and not the UPN we got to know last war, white peace would not have been an option.

As for the reasons:
1. During Bi-Polar UPN alone was bigger then R&R, yet it was apparently needed to bring in half a dozen other alliances. Which perhaps we should have seen as a compliment i dunno.
2. Anarchizing nations less then a month old and then sending them messages, first we thought surrender messages, which is a sound tactic until we got our hands on them and found out the messages stated they should join UPN to be protected against anarchy. Which is poaching at the best of times.
3. Launching a second wave of attacks while everyone on the front was having a ceasefire to figure out what polar did and how it would affect sides.
4. general unsportsmanlike conduct of some of your members, one of them that i remember was: Someone was going on vacation and messaged that to his attacker, who agreed to not continue the war. In itself not a promise he has to keep. But if he holds his attacks for one day, then 2 other nations declare on said nation and he sends a message stating something along the lines of "HAHAHAHAHA enjoy your holiday !@#$%^&" i consider that very much unfriendly even amongst enemies, if you have to destroy someone thats not around, at least do it businesslike instead of something like this. (And this is just one of maybe a dozen incidents, though the one i remember most).

These things of course also got even more frustrating because of the switch and UPN going neutral robbing us of any payback, add months of time for frustration to increase and thats where it got us or at least a decent number among us.

But no, I made clear even before the war i had at least a measure of respect for you and what you where trying to do in UPN, and last war proved UPN was working on change. For me when i realised that the hate quickly died off. Now it's more of a gimmick, like: "Yeah don't mind robster, he's just UPN, no one likes him anyway" Old habits die hard, and I think over time hate for UPN has turned in UPN somehow in a twisted way becoming part of R&R culture. Which for UPN members might look like hate but these days is more just a habit and meant more for fun then anything else.

I can include my personal feelings when i say it was a bad call on GOD/R&R side. Again Bi-Polar UPN / VE-NpO UPN are from this perspective almost 2 different alliances, the hate was for the first, the disbandment threat was directed at the wrong one.

I will someday Lately i've been less active and pre-occupied with other matters, but it will happen.

Ramirus i suppose, managed to piss off even his eternal allies, pretty much got one hell of a strong alliance killed in a matter of weeks.. hated by friend and foe, so yeah pretty controversial i think.

Not so much in this is what we want to accomplish with the topic. More that we wanted to get rid of some misconceptions, which could have been done with a statement just as (in)effectively as with this Q&A. But Q&A's and talking with people always has some sort of value even though you can't predict what that will be before the start.

Color politics was already dying/dead when i started my nation. I think the use for it is pretty much gone which is sad since from what i can tell it brought an entire world of possibilities and extra dimensions to this game.

[Robster83]

[quote]Anyway, I'm glad that RnR's ill will toward UPN is largely a thing of the past. I'll let you attend to the more pressing issues. [/quote]

I second the statement heh. Thank you for answering our questions honestly and elaborately.

[EgoFreaky]

[quote name='Rebel Virginia' timestamp='1312739328' post='2774237']
[color="#0000FF"]You know, the more you say things like this (and this is not the first time in this thread that you have said something along these lines), the more convinced I am that RnR, at least, just passively sits by and lets others worry about their foreign policy for them.[/color]
[/quote]

If that's your belief that's okay. I don't share that though. I will admit we have a policy to leave our allies business to their own, we advise were asked and step in were needed. Our policy of little intrusion does cause us to be late for the party from time to time. On top of that i think it's a view that feeds of the fact that when i drop the ball i usually don't try to hide it and just admit my part in it.

[quote name='TECUMSEH' timestamp='1312740176' post='2774243']
EgoFreaky:

I wasn't doubting RnR's hate for UPN nor its motivations during the last war. My point was (and remains) that we weren't particularly "scared" with the "disbandment" talk. I knew it wasn't credible for a host of reasons, none of which are worth going into. Others on OWF made a big deal about it and beat up Xiph about it, but it wasn't me (or UPN).

Anyway, I'm glad that RnR's ill will toward UPN is largely a thing of the past. I'll let you attend to the more pressing issues.
[/quote]

Ah okay, yeah 90% of the time disbandment threats from any source aren't highly likely. I do agree that it was unlikely to happen from the start.

I'm glad too, I don't like eternal grudges, the air needed to be cleared, sometimes it has to happen with a talk, sometimes by sharing each others nuclear technology.

Oh and also, i don't agree with what was stated earlier that UPN was the softest target in the war. Maybe in other wars, but having fought UPN 3 times now, we could definitely see the improvement in both preparation of part of your alliance and dedication in most.

[Lord Levistus]

[quote name='EgoFreaky' timestamp='1312741444' post='2774248']
1. During Bi-Polar UPN alone was bigger then R&R, yet it was apparently needed to bring in half a dozen other alliances. Which perhaps we should have seen as a compliment i dunno.
2. Anarchizing nations less then a month old and then sending them messages, first we thought surrender messages, which is a sound tactic until we got our hands on them and found out the messages stated they should join UPN to be protected against anarchy. Which is poaching at the best of times.
3. Launching a second wave of attacks while everyone on the front was having a ceasefire to figure out what polar did and how it would affect sides.
4. general unsportsmanlike conduct of some of your members, one of them that i remember was: Someone was going on vacation and messaged that to his attacker, who agreed to not continue the war. In itself not a promise he has to keep. But if he holds his attacks for one day, then 2 other nations declare on said nation and he sends a message stating something along the lines of "HAHAHAHAHA enjoy your holiday !@#$%^&" i consider that very much unfriendly even amongst enemies, if you have to destroy someone thats not around, at least do it businesslike instead of something like this. (And this is just one of maybe a dozen incidents, though the one i remember most).
[/quote]

I wouldn't assume any of this was meant to irritate R&R. More so that it's just a condemnation of UPN in general, and of no surprise to many.

/me shrugs

[Dom Zak]

Do you think this Q&A will actually be beneficial to you or no? Sup R&R ... and Liz