trimm Posted June 15, 2012 Report Share Posted June 15, 2012 Hey, there are these little things called "non chaining clauses" that are in treaties JUST FOR THIS SORT OF OCCASION where you don't want to ride in to support your allies being stupid (or their allies for that matter). And while we are at it, what the FRAK has TLR done for you to merit this massive public display of hand wringing and chest puffing? I mean really, you are going to chain into a war over a CB that you have publicly declared to be worth a pile of crap? Don't come out and wave your arms in the air and tell us how you are all rending your garments and gnashing your teeth over this awful CB that you just feel obligated to come in and defend anyway. It is disingenuous, stupid, and very transparent. Treaties aren't suicide pacts (unless you are VE/GOD anyway) and there is no way on Bob that I'd chain into a war started over such a silly reason, and I sure wouldn't chain into it while crowing on the OWF about how much it pains me to do so. Get the heck over yourselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirWilliam Posted June 15, 2012 Report Share Posted June 15, 2012 I'm not buying it, but good luck nonetheless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gofastleft Posted June 15, 2012 Report Share Posted June 15, 2012 I had people who knew my past feelings for NPO ask how I could now be allied to them. I have told them that everything I have seen from Brehon and NPO has impressed me. Once again they prove me right. o/ NPO o/ Brehon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Letum Posted June 15, 2012 Report Share Posted June 15, 2012 [quote name='trimm' timestamp='1339723031' post='2984184'] Hey, there are these little things called "non chaining clauses" that are in treaties JUST FOR THIS SORT OF OCCASION where you don't want to ride in to support your allies being stupid (or their allies for that matter). And while we are at it, what the FRAK has TLR done for you to merit this massive public display of hand wringing and chest puffing? I mean really, you are going to chain into a war over a CB that you have publicly declared to be worth a pile of crap? Don't come out and wave your arms in the air and tell us how you are all rending your garments and gnashing your teeth over this awful CB that you just feel obligated to come in and defend anyway. It is disingenuous, stupid, and very transparent. Treaties aren't suicide pacts (unless you are VE/GOD anyway) and there is no way on Bob that I'd chain into a war started over such a silly reason, and I sure wouldn't chain into it while crowing on the OWF about how much it pains me to do so. Get the heck over yourselves. [/quote] You know what is interesting? The word "obligation" appears zero times in the op. We are not doing this because of some feeling that we have to or that our hands our tied. We are doing so because one of our priorities (the welfare of our allies) is more important than another priority (our opposition to this CB). We are aware that we always have a choice, and this is in no way meant to try and deflect the responsibility for choosing to support. We are accepting the cause of our decision, we are accepting that we are enabling something we do not like. But life isn't sunshine and daisies, you have to make compromises. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trimm Posted June 15, 2012 Report Share Posted June 15, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Letum' timestamp='1339724782' post='2984194'] You know what is interesting? The word "obligation" appears zero times in the op. We are not doing this because of some feeling that we have to or that our hands our tied. We are doing so because one of our priorities (the welfare of our allies) is more important than another priority (our opposition to this CB). We are aware that we always have a choice, and this is in no way meant to try and deflect the responsibility for choosing to support. We are accepting the cause of our decision, we are accepting that we are enabling something we do not like. But life isn't sunshine and daisies, you have to make compromises. [/quote] There are times to compromise, and there are times to look an ally in the eye and say "No, we won't ride in to assist you in your idiotic crusade for drama and lulz." This time is squarely one of those two, and I'll leave you to figure out which one it is. Here is a hint: You already picked the wrong one. Oh and BTW, if you think they have such an abysmal CB, then you probably shouldn't have any overwhelming desire to see "protect" their interests since they are the ones who, yknow, CHOSE to act on said abysmal CB. Edited June 15, 2012 by trimm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Letum Posted June 15, 2012 Report Share Posted June 15, 2012 [quote name='trimm' timestamp='1339725095' post='2984202'] There are times to compromise, and there are times to look an ally in the eye and say "No, we won't ride in to assist you in your idiotic crusade for drama and lulz." This time is squarely one of those two, and I'll leave you to figure out which one it is. Here is a hint: You already picked the wrong one. Oh and BTW, if you think they have such an abysmal CB, then you probably shouldn't have any overwhelming desire to see "protect" their interests since they are the ones who, yknow, CHOSE to act on said abysmal CB. [/quote] MK isn't our ally, so I'm not sure what the heck you are talking about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trimm Posted June 15, 2012 Report Share Posted June 15, 2012 [quote name='Letum' timestamp='1339725199' post='2984203'] MK isn't our ally, so I'm not sure what the heck you are talking about. [/quote] If TLR goes in to support MK, and you choose to support TLR in doing so then, profit? Don't be intentionally dense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Savage Man Posted June 15, 2012 Report Share Posted June 15, 2012 trimm has a point, the projected side of MK also has a massive numerical advantage so if TLR got attacked or attacked, they could easily find replacements for NPO to fill slots that need to be filled. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trimm Posted June 15, 2012 Report Share Posted June 15, 2012 It's also well past the point of time on Bob for people to start actually using the non chaining clauses in their treaties if they ACTUALLY have a problem with what their allies or associates are doing. I mean, it is really pretty lousy to go publicly crying, "Hey, we think your CB is just the worst of the worst. We really hate it a whole heaping lot. But, yknow, since we have that treaty and all..." Especially when we are talking about the actions of the ally of your ally. Yknow what NPO? If you REALLY think that the MK CB is that bad, then don't chain in. Simple as that. Otherwise, take this mindless hand wringing off the OWF. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Letum Posted June 15, 2012 Report Share Posted June 15, 2012 [quote name='trimm' timestamp='1339725341' post='2984209'] If TLR goes in to support MK, and you choose to support TLR in doing so then, profit? Don't be intentionally dense. [/quote] This is not TLR's CB or "Crusade". Supporting TLR would likely have the consequence of enabling MK, but that is a side-effect, not the primary motivation, as you are trying to portray it as being in your post. I realize that there has been a tradition since 2006 to act as if the "other side" is a homogeneous, one-minded and brainwashed organism, but we treat TLR as separate from MK. TLR has their own motivations and goals - many of them linked to MK's, but still separate. We care about our relationship TLR (and NG, and others involved here) more than we feel concern about their connection to a CB we do not like. You might keep trying to portray it otherwise, as impotent raging or whatsover, but that's the simple truth. We don't like this, but we are making the conscious decision to be on this side because we feel it is for the best, [b]despite the costs[/b]. It is a falsehood to keep trying to show us as complaining about "having no choice" or "having our hands tied". It is intellectually immature to repeatedly try and flatline this into a black and white moral dimension; everyone in this position has to balance competing priorities, and the decision we made does not end up being what you like. Get over it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Paul Posted June 15, 2012 Report Share Posted June 15, 2012 I'm just a nobody, but I think it's pretty clear... NPO will defend their allies, and no more. The second people attacking their allies cease to be a clear and present danger, I suspect the NPO will peace out and if their allies wish to continue the war, it will be without NPO support. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dejarue Posted June 15, 2012 Report Share Posted June 15, 2012 Man this really didn't go the way it was intended. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trimm Posted June 15, 2012 Report Share Posted June 15, 2012 [quote name='Letum' timestamp='1339726742' post='2984231'] This is not TLR's CB or "Crusade". Supporting TLR would likely have the consequence of enabling MK, but that is a side-effect, not the primary motivation, as you are trying to portray it as being in your post. I realize that there has been a tradition since 2006 to act as if the "other side" is a homogeneous, one-minded and brainwashed organism, but we treat TLR as separate from MK. TLR has their own motivations and goals - many of them linked to MK's, but still separate. We care about our relationship TLR (and NG, and others involved here) more than we feel concern about their connection to a CB we do not like. You might keep trying to portray it otherwise, as impotent raging or whatsover, but that's the simple truth. We don't like this, but we are making the conscious decision to be on this side because we feel it is for the best, [b]despite the costs[/b]. It is a falsehood to keep trying to show us as complaining about "having no choice" or "having our hands tied". It is intellectually immature to repeatedly try and flatline this into a black and white moral dimension; everyone in this position has to balance competing priorities, and the decision we made does not end up being what you like. Get over it. [/quote] Get over it? I'm not the guy who came to the OWF to proclaim just how difficult the situation is for my alliance, and how conflicted I am about this woeful situation. And like you said, by supporting TLR's choice to support and enable MK, you are supporting and enabling MK. Which stands in pretty stark contrast to Brehon's bawwing about the CB. Guess what Einstein, you don't get to have it both ways. You want to stick with TLR, and by extension MK? Then keep your traps shut on the OWF about how much it pains you to do so, because not nobody with half a brain is buying what you're selling. If you really find the CB so objectionable, then don't act in such a way as to support and enable the people acting on it. That [u]is[/u] a pretty black and white call as far as I'm concerned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jgoods45 Posted June 15, 2012 Report Share Posted June 15, 2012 An awful amount of anger in this topic. :> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thrash Posted June 15, 2012 Report Share Posted June 15, 2012 [quote name='Letum' timestamp='1339726742' post='2984231'] I realize that there has been a tradition since 2006 to act as if the "other side" is a homogeneous, one-minded and brainwashed organism, but we treat TLR as separate from MK. TLR has their own motivations and goals - many of them linked to MK's, but still separate. [/quote] Gee, that sounds awfully like the reason given for our cancellation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Letum Posted June 15, 2012 Report Share Posted June 15, 2012 (edited) [quote name='trimm' timestamp='1339727433' post='2984241'] Get over it? I'm not the guy who came to the OWF to proclaim just how difficult the situation is for my alliance, and how conflicted I am about this woeful situation. And like you said, by supporting TLR's choice to support and enable MK, you are supporting and enabling MK. Which stands in pretty stark contrast to Brehon's bawwing about the CB. Guess what Einstein, you don't get to have it both ways. You want to stick with TLR, and by extension MK? Then keep your traps shut on the OWF about how much it pains you to do so, because not nobody with half a brain is buying what you're selling. If you really find the CB so objectionable, then don't act in such a way as to support and enable the people acting on it. That [u]is[/u] a pretty black and white call as far as I'm concerned. [/quote] You can feel this way if you want, however you don't get to make the call on our behalf. We do not feel it is black and white, and we feel we need to make our position on the matter known. If you want us to keep our traps shut then that's just too bad, because we aren't going to play by your whims. We want our position to be absolutely clear and not vulnerable to the kinds of spin doctors who might want to portray this as being MK's lapdog or portray it as us wanting to get at SF/VE. Edited June 15, 2012 by Letum Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trimm Posted June 15, 2012 Report Share Posted June 15, 2012 [quote name='Letum' timestamp='1339728510' post='2984262'] You can feel this way if you want, however you don't get to make the call on our behalf. We do not feel it is black and white, and we feel we need to make our position on the matter known. If you want us to keep our traps shut then that's just too bad, because we aren't going to play by your whims. We want our position to be absolutely clear and not vulnerable to the kinds of spin doctors who might want to portray this as being MK's lapdog or portray it as us wanting to get at SF/VE. [/quote] Uhhh, newsflash sport, you look pretty silly (potentially) riding to war in defense of a CB that you've just labeled loudly and publicly in no uncertain terms as awful. Nobody needs to spin this into anything, you just came right out of the gate looking and sounding absurd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Apocalypse Posted June 15, 2012 Report Share Posted June 15, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Letum' timestamp='1339726742' post='2984231'] We don't like this, but we are making the conscious decision to be on this side because we feel it is for the best, [b]despite the costs[/b]. It is a falsehood to keep trying to show us as complaining about "having no choice" or "having our hands tied". It is intellectually immature to repeatedly try and flatline this into a black and white moral dimension; everyone in this position has to balance competing priorities, and the decision we made does not end up being what you like. Get over it. [/quote] So why did you feel it necessary to let us know that you don't agree with the cb. If you're just going to defend your allies then do just that. Leave your own personal morals back in Francograd if your aim really is to simply defend allies, don't start grandstanding and harping on about how you feel this cb is unjustified because clearly it's not that big of a deal for you because you're rolling with it anyway. Edited June 15, 2012 by Johnny Apocalypse Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Letum Posted June 15, 2012 Report Share Posted June 15, 2012 [quote name='trimm' timestamp='1339728721' post='2984265'] Nobody needs to spin this into anything[/quote] Are you actually naive enough to think anyone will buy this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mogar Posted June 15, 2012 Report Share Posted June 15, 2012 [quote name='Letum' timestamp='1339728510' post='2984262'] We want our position to be absolutely clear and not vulnerable to the kinds of spin doctors who might want to portray this as being MK's lapdog or portray it as us wanting to get at SF/VE. [/quote] "the guys beating you up and us have a mutual friend, so if the mutual friend helps beat you up, ima probably kick your ass too, i could easily stand here and just watch, but i think i will beat you up while telling the first guy that it's bad to beat people up" <-this is your logic, true story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trimm Posted June 15, 2012 Report Share Posted June 15, 2012 [quote name='Letum' timestamp='1339728964' post='2984269'] Are you actually naive enough to think anyone will buy this? [/quote] Selective quoting for the win! Let's look at what I [i]actually[/i] said. [quote]Nobody needs to spin this into anything, you just came right out of the gate looking and sounding absurd. [/quote] Let me interpret this for you since you seem to have totally missed it. No one is going to spin this, because the facts of it straight up make you look some kind of combination of foolish and weak. Spin implies that people will make your statement mean something other than what you actually said. That's not necessary here. What you said was "We REALLY don't like this CB, but we are going to stand behind it because, well, we support our allies etc." That's a rather indefensible statement to make out here on the OWF, and can be called so on its face with no need for spin. There, does that help? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted June 15, 2012 Report Share Posted June 15, 2012 [quote name='Johnny Apocalypse' timestamp='1339728776' post='2984266'] So why did you feel it necessary to let us know that you don't agree with the cb. If you're just going to defend your allies then do just that. Leave your own personal morals back in Francograd if your aim really is to simply defend allies, don't start grandstanding and harping on about how you feel this cb is unjustified because clearly it's not that big of a deal for you because you're rolling with it anyway. [/quote] That is a great signature sir. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Letum Posted June 15, 2012 Report Share Posted June 15, 2012 [quote name='trimm' timestamp='1339729273' post='2984277'] Let me interpret this for you since you seem to have totally missed it. No one is going to spin this, because the facts of it straight up make you look some kind of combination of foolish and weak. Spin implies that people will make your statement mean something other than what you actually said. That's not necessary here. What you said was "We REALLY don't like this CB, but we are going to stand behind it because, well, we support our allies etc." That's a rather indefensible statement to make out here on the OWF, and can be called so on its face with no need for spin. There, does that help? [/quote] Spin implies that there are several people out there who have an interest in making it look like the NPO has different motives and goals than what it actually has, and would therefore engage in a campaign to twist perceptions to that effect. Don't try and sell some kind of !@#$%^&* of it not being "necessary". That is not the kind of world we live in. Our statement exists to prevent that spin from happening in the first place, and not as the base line upon which the spin will be applied. You are being deliberately obtuse in not recognizing that. If you feel it is indefensible, that's a cool story for you bro. We feel it is a pretty straightforward set of reasoning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Apocalypse Posted June 15, 2012 Report Share Posted June 15, 2012 [quote name='WarriorConcept' timestamp='1339729500' post='2984282'] That is a great signature sir. [/quote] thanks, i made it myself :3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LegendoftheSkies Posted June 15, 2012 Report Share Posted June 15, 2012 I too am disgusted by what MK is doing, but will still fight for my alliance in support of MK. Praise me for my undying honor and loyalty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.