Tom Litler Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 (edited) Oh come now, Big Z. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me, but you won't fool me again. It is just insulting to your colleagues on the world stage to deny that the beginning of a familiar campaign of isolation that we have seen numerous times won't lead to the same conclusion it has led to dozens of other times. What is different here? FOK or no FOK, if not today or tomorrow, or in a week; TGE is on somebody's list and you know it. Edit: Lord Brendan, this applies to you too. Seriously, what will you give me when you're wrong? Edited February 8, 2009 by Tom Litler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
droopyland Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 So TPF and NADC make up 'most of the world'? Simple mistake really, NADC usually only does things once the water's been tested by 'the rest of the world'. Initiative is not their strongest suit.. This is just a one off kind of thing, only following one alliance - I don't imagine we'll see it again after this debacle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpiderJerusalem Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 see... this is why FOK is among my top 5 alliances in this game Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricardo Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 I always liked FOK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delta1212 Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 Oh come now, Big Z. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me, but you won't fool me again.It is just insulting to your colleagues on the world stage to deny that the beginning of a familiar campaign of isolation that we have seen numerous times won't lead to the same conclusion it has led to dozens of other times. What is different here? FOK or no FOK, if not today or tomorrow, or in a week; TGE is on somebody's list and you know it. Edit: Lord Brendan, this applies to you too. Seriously, what will you give me when you're wrong? I think, perhaps, that you should reread what it was he actually said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shurukian Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 (edited) I would like to raise a question. If you have a treaty partner that is giving you no communication, and relations with them have dropped to nothing, then why do you keep the treaty around? Why does something always have to have a hidden meaning or a secret attack behind something? I for one, believe that if you have an empty treaty, it's pointless to keep it around. Actions like keeping empty treaties around are what lead to such sudden breaks before an attack, as some are suggesting. Now maybe I'm out of the loop, but I don't know of anyone gunning for TGE, and don't see NADC running from anything. Therefore, I can see why this was posted, but I don't know why all the NADC bashing is needed. But then again, maybe it's just the trend to keep empty treaties these days. Edited February 8, 2009 by Shurukian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Litler Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 I think, perhaps, that you should reread what it was he actually said. I think perhaps you should make your point if your powers of perception are as keen as you make them out to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slayer99 Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 Why was it necessary to post an announcement that you were NOT canceling a treaty? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ardus Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 Why was it necessary to post an announcement that you were NOT canceling a treaty? To stir the pot. If you don't do it occasionally the brew will get this nasty skin on the top. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Rote Baron Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 I won't pretend to know why this was posted or pretend that I grasp the politics here, but Emperor Frederick II has made it clear to us that TGE will shed every last drop of blood in defense of our friends - so it is not unexpected to me that our friends would stand by us. o/ FOK!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpiderJerusalem Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 Why was it necessary to post an announcement that you were NOT canceling a treaty? Because they wanted to show that they stick with their treaties... Unlike some others I know Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Blake Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 (edited) Because they wanted to show that they stick with their treaties... Unlike some others I know Shuru already covered it, but why must a treaty be kept if there is no communication or friendly interaction between its signatories? edit: forgot the word 'interaction' Edited February 8, 2009 by William Blake Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChairmanHal Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 Why was it necessary to post an announcement that you were NOT canceling a treaty? It's a Declaration of Support in disguise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Litler Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 I would like to raise a question. If you have a treaty partner that is giving you no communication, and relations with them have dropped to nothing, then why do you keep the treaty around? Why does something always have to have a hidden meaning or a secret attack behind something? I for one, believe that if you have an empty treaty, it's pointless to keep it around. Actions like keeping empty treaties around are what lead to such sudden breaks before an attack, as some are suggesting. Now maybe I'm out of the loop, but I don't know of anyone gunning for TGE, and don't see NADC running from anything. Therefore, I can see why this was posted, but I don't know why all the NADC bashing is needed. But then again, maybe it's just the trend to keep empty treaties these days. If only it were truly that simple but it never has been and the track record simply does not give reason to believe that this time will be any different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mythicknight Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 Paranoia is in, it seems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Brendan Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 Edit: Lord Brendan, this applies to you too. Seriously, what will you give me when you're wrong? What are we betting on? TGE being declared on or FOK honoring the treaty? I'll bet 100 tech/6M that FOK honors the treaty should it be activated (assuming you're not on any ZI lists). Why was it necessary to post an announcement that you were NOT canceling a treaty? Was this announcement really necessary? When your ally is facing tough times, there's nothing wrong with making a show of support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oktavia Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 Well, at least FOK is being honest on their announcements. The two cancellations should of just said, " sorry guys .. we want to fight on this side so we're eliminating holes in our treaty chain. " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xiphosis Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 I would like to raise a question. If you have a treaty partner that is giving you no communication, and relations with them have dropped to nothing, then why do you keep the treaty around? Why does something always have to have a hidden meaning or a secret attack behind something? Nothing wrong with dropping dated treaties, the reason NADC is getting bashed in here some is because few give them credit enough to make that decision without being prodded (how many people do you honestly know that audit and cancel ODPs? There's people with MDoAP's on this game that hate each other, for crying out loud). Therefore, most are concluding - however rightly - that NADC is merely fulfilling a back room request to drop an ally. Something not a lot of people are big fans of, apparently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Litler Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 What are we betting on? TGE being declared on or FOK honoring the treaty? I'll bet 100 tech/6M that FOK honors the treaty should it be activated (assuming you're not on any ZI lists).Was this announcement really necessary? When your ally is facing tough times, there's nothing wrong with making a show of support. I wasn't denying that FOK will jump in front of the train too when it comes. That wasn't my point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Boris Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 Well, at least FOK is being honest on their announcements. The two cancellations should of just said, " sorry guys .. we want to fight on this side so we're eliminating holes in our treaty chain. " You're going under the assumption that only two treaties have been canceled up to this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Affluenza Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 Why was it necessary to post an announcement that you were NOT canceling a treaty? A show of support ofcourse. I have a question for you. Why is it necessary for you to post a retirement thread every month? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lennox Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 Its nice to see people with spines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Brendan Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 I wasn't denying that FOK will jump in front of the train too when it comes. That wasn't my point. So what was your point? That someone is out to get TGE? I'm not touching that bet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ardus Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 I wasn't denying that FOK will jump in front of the train too when it comes. That wasn't my point. I wouldn't say they're jumping in front of the train. It's more like they've got their own train on the same tracks going the opposite way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cowman809 Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 Nothing wrong with dropping dated treaties, the reason NADC is getting bashed in here some is because few give them credit enough to make that decision without being prodded (how many people do you honestly know that audit and cancel ODPs? There's people with MDoAP's on this game that hate each other, for crying out loud). Therefore, most are concluding - however rightly - that NADC is merely fulfilling a back room request to drop an ally.Something not a lot of people are big fans of, apparently. Precisely Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts