Gen Lee Posted February 17, 2009 Report Share Posted February 17, 2009 The difference is that TPF didn't come on the forums to baw about how RoK does business. No, they came on the forums to "Baww" about how GOD did business and RoK responded. Well, now that this is handled, is there anything else you would like to "baw" about Lord Boris? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Flinders Posted February 17, 2009 Report Share Posted February 17, 2009 (edited) Since RoK is clearly making a stand for their ally's sovereignty and practices (which I can applaud of course), then perhaps RoK government would be able to comment on something the GOD government has been unable to up to this point. If it was GOD's sovereign decision to pursue KM for his actions of years gone by, why was he not pursued in NV or BDC? Having that question legitimately answered would do much to bridge my understanding as it appears there is a rather gaping hole in the logic behind GOD's practices. Additionally, if TPF and GOD came to an agreement that was mutually agreed upon, why such a fuss? Edited February 17, 2009 by Captain Flinders Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AvengerNL Posted February 17, 2009 Report Share Posted February 17, 2009 Since RoK is clearly making a stand for their ally's sovereignty and practices (which I can applaud of course), then perhaps RoK government would be able to comment on something the GOD government has been unable to up to this point. If it was GOD's sovereign decision to pursue KM for his actions of years gone by, why was he not pursued in NV or BDC? Having that question legitimately answered would do much to bridge my understanding as it appears there is a rather gaping hole in the logic behind GOD's practices. Additionally, if TPF and GOD came to an agreement that was mutually agreed upon, why such a fuss? Look, I aint in GOD or something, but I dont think pursuing someone in an alliance allied to Polaris shortly after the UJW was over was the smartest thing for an 'Unjust' alliance to do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earogema Posted February 17, 2009 Report Share Posted February 17, 2009 I personally bet that sometime in the very near future, the GGA-Rok treaty will be dropped, along with the NPO-Rok treaty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Wilson Posted February 17, 2009 Report Share Posted February 17, 2009 and now you don't even come around anymore I'm sorry baby . I try but your never around when I am. And sorry Capt. Flinders, I have not the knowledge or seniority to answer that question. But I'm sure GOD has a good reason for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Wilson Posted February 17, 2009 Report Share Posted February 17, 2009 I personally bet that sometime in the very near future, the GGA-Rok treaty will be dropped, along with the NPO-Rok treaty. I find your logic illogical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gen Lee Posted February 17, 2009 Report Share Posted February 17, 2009 Since RoK is clearly making a stand for their ally's sovereignty and practices (which I can applaud of course), then perhaps RoK government would be able to comment on something the GOD government has been unable to up to this point. If it was GOD's sovereign decision to pursue KM for his actions of years gone by, why was he not pursued in NV or BDC? Having that question legitimately answered would do much to bridge my understanding as it appears there is a rather gaping hole in the logic behind GOD's practices. Additionally, if TPF and GOD came to an agreement that was mutually agreed upon, why such a fuss? You really need to go re-read the OP. You can debate the intricacies of those matters all you want, but they don't play a part in this decision. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Litler Posted February 17, 2009 Report Share Posted February 17, 2009 I personally bet that sometime in the very near future, the GGA-Rok treaty will be dropped, along with the NPO-Rok treaty. Inconceivable! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Srqt Posted February 17, 2009 Report Share Posted February 17, 2009 (edited) Since RoK is clearly making a stand for their ally's sovereignty and practices (which I can applaud of course), then perhaps RoK government would be able to comment on something the GOD government has been unable to up to this point. If it was GOD's sovereign decision to pursue KM for his actions of years gone by, why was he not pursued in NV or BDC? Having that question legitimately answered would do much to bridge my understanding as it appears there is a rather gaping hole in the logic behind GOD's practices. Additionally, if TPF and GOD came to an agreement that was mutually agreed upon, why such a fuss? I can not speak for GOD but I can say that the situations were different as KM was not yet a member of Zenith when the claim against him was made. There is a large difference between pursuing an alliance member and a nation who has not yet been accepted to any alliance. I personally bet that sometime in the very near future, the GGA-Rok treaty will be dropped, along with the NPO-Rok treaty. IIRC the GGA-RoK treaty was canceled months ago Edited February 17, 2009 by KingSrqt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earogema Posted February 17, 2009 Report Share Posted February 17, 2009 I find your logic illogical. I never said it was logical. Really, betting at all is illogical. Just a hunch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earogema Posted February 17, 2009 Report Share Posted February 17, 2009 (edited) IIRC the GGA-RoK treaty was canceled months ago If the wiki is correct, then so are you. I must have missed that one. EDIT: In that case, I'll change GGA to Valhalla. Edited February 17, 2009 by MegaAros Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Flinders Posted February 17, 2009 Report Share Posted February 17, 2009 I can not speak for GOD but I can say that the situations were different as KM was not yet a member of Zenith when the claim against him was made. There is a large difference between pursuing an alliance member and a nation who has not yet been accepted to any alliance. So am I left to believe that GOD's ZI practice only applies to unaligned nations? Why was a deal like the one made with Zenith not pursued with NV or BDC? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Flinders Posted February 17, 2009 Report Share Posted February 17, 2009 You really need to go re-read the OP. You can debate the intricacies of those matters all you want, but they don't play a part in this decision. You canceled in defense of your ally's sovereign actions, practices. Questioning you about those same practices seems a reasonable thing to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattski133 Posted February 17, 2009 Report Share Posted February 17, 2009 Additionally, if TPF and GOD came to an agreement that was mutually agreed upon, why such a fuss? Means to the Ends if I read the OP correctly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Srqt Posted February 17, 2009 Report Share Posted February 17, 2009 So am I left to believe that GOD's ZI practice only applies to unaligned nations? Why was a deal like the one made with Zenith not pursued with NV or BDC? Again I can not speak for GOD and haven't really talked to Xiph about that question I was merely pointing out that the situations were different. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earogema Posted February 17, 2009 Report Share Posted February 17, 2009 So am I left to believe that GOD's ZI practice only applies to unaligned nations? Why was a deal like the one made with Zenith not pursued with NV or BDC? NV would have defended him, E_S would have enacted BLEU, and GOD would die. It's because GOD didn't want to risk being destroyed. Now they just want to settle an old vendetta. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Litler Posted February 17, 2009 Report Share Posted February 17, 2009 In that case, I'll change GGA to Valhalla. Then... I won't be seeing my RoK kameraden in Valhalla after all? Such a shame. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Flinders Posted February 17, 2009 Report Share Posted February 17, 2009 Again I can not speak for GOD and haven't really talked to Xiph about that question I was merely pointing out that the situations were different. Fair enough. NV would have defended him, E_S would have enacted BLEU, and GOD would die. It's because GOD didn't want to risk being destroyed. Now they just want to settle an old vendetta. That's the general feeling I get as well though since RoK has seen fit to be so open about the situation, it would be nice to see GOD do the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Pansy Posted February 17, 2009 Report Share Posted February 17, 2009 I personally bet that sometime in the very near future, the GGA-Rok treaty will be dropped, along with the NPO-Rok treaty. Damn you added us before i could say something If the wiki is correct, then so are you. I must have missed that one. EDIT: In that case, I'll change GGA to Valhalla. awwwwh can't Valhalla drop everyone except Rok and throw a curve ball to the tinfoil brigade??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gen Lee Posted February 17, 2009 Report Share Posted February 17, 2009 You canceled in defense of your ally's sovereign actions, practices. Questioning you about those same practices seems a reasonable thing to me. The OP very clearly states this cancellation is not about the debatable controversies you are asking about. The treaty was canceled because TPF decided to take an aggressive and disrespectful stance against our allies without attempting any type of private diplomacy or contacting us to attempt to mediate the situation together. The disrespect shown towards GOD and the complete disregard for seeking diplomatic channels coupled with a less than desirable past communication record from both sides made this decision that much easier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queen Hoopdy the 1st Posted February 17, 2009 Report Share Posted February 17, 2009 Fair enough. That's the general feeling I get as well though since RoK has seen fit to be so open about the situation, it would be nice to see GOD do the same. Ok, here's the thing: you are boring. RoK's homey had a beef with TPF's homey in home room. Seeing as how RoK and TPF were 'going together' (do the air quotes), things got awkward. Rok and TPF decided to honor their homies, but keep the lovin' on the down low out behind the bleachers. So go conspiracy theory somewhere else. Or at least make it funny and/or slightly interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Flinders Posted February 17, 2009 Report Share Posted February 17, 2009 The OP very clearly states this cancellation is not about the debatable controversies you are asking about. And yet in the next breathe you're going to speak on the controversies I'm asking about... The treaty was canceled because TPF decided to take an aggressive and disrespectful stance against our allies without attempting any type of private diplomacy or contacting us to attempt to mediate the situation together. GOD and TPF are big boys. They don't need you to mediate their talks. Though I am curious, what disrespect was shown by TPF? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gen Lee Posted February 17, 2009 Report Share Posted February 17, 2009 And yet in the next breathe you're going to speak on the controversies I'm asking about...GOD and TPF are big boys. They don't need you to mediate their talks. Though I am curious, what disrespect was shown by TPF? You seem to be lost. The issue was not between GOD and TPF, go catch up so your post will make more sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Flinders Posted February 17, 2009 Report Share Posted February 17, 2009 You seem to be lost. The issue was not between GOD and TPF, go catch up so your post will make more sense. The OP very clearly states this cancellation is not about the debatable controversies you are asking about. The treaty was canceled because TPF decided to take an aggressive and disrespectful stance against our allies without attempting any type of private diplomacy or contacting us to attempt to mediate the situation together. The disrespect shown towards GOD and the complete disregard for seeking diplomatic channels coupled with a less than desirable past communication record from both sides made this decision that much easier. Hell yes I'm confused. But not for lack of reading. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queen Hoopdy the 1st Posted February 17, 2009 Report Share Posted February 17, 2009 Hell yes I'm confused. But not for lack of reading. Then might I suggest shutting the hell up? 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.