Consul of Monkeys Posted March 19, 2009 Report Share Posted March 19, 2009 Well I posted this in MK's embassy, but I might as well put it out here. I can't speak for CoM, but I believe he was referring to the people posted negative comments last time, posted them again. You are correct my friend Feel free to PM me if you want any clarification. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scorbolt Posted March 19, 2009 Report Share Posted March 19, 2009 Well I posted this in MK's embassy, but I might as well put it out here. I can't speak for CoM, but I believe he was referring to the people posted negative comments last time, posted them again. Those same old tired faces... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cairna Posted March 19, 2009 Report Share Posted March 19, 2009 You are correct my friend Feel free to PM me if you want any clarification. Last time refers to what, exactly? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJPenguin Posted March 19, 2009 Report Share Posted March 19, 2009 The initial TSO treaty signing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted March 19, 2009 Report Share Posted March 19, 2009 You are correct my friend Feel free to PM me if you want any clarification. If you don't want to be insulted, perhaps you shouldn't be protecting an alliance that eludes failure from its every pore. Everything that TSO has done or can be connected to, from the MCXA forums to the very creation of their alliance, has eluded this very distinct odor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fupresti Posted March 19, 2009 Report Share Posted March 19, 2009 The initial TSO treaty signing. Is it surprising that it is the same comments? Since the initial announcement, the public opinion on TSO has gone from horrible to AIG levels. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hasin Posted March 19, 2009 Report Share Posted March 19, 2009 (edited) We judged from the first announcement that the second would be interesting as well. There's nothing in Consul's post that says this was surprising or we didn't expect to be the subject of controversy. It was more of a light-hearted post pointing out that we've already been hit by all the regulars. Edited March 19, 2009 by Hasin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Consul of Monkeys Posted March 19, 2009 Report Share Posted March 19, 2009 If you don't want to be insulted, perhaps you shouldn't be protecting an alliance that eludes failure from its every pore. Everything that TSO has done or can be connected to, from the MCXA forums to the very creation of their alliance, has eluded this very distinct odor. I'm not insulted at all. I take most comments and opinions on OWF with a distinct pinch of salt. What matters is we are happy, and our allies are happy. Nothing more, nothing less. Is it surprising that it is the same comments? Since the initial announcement, the public opinion on TSO has gone from horrible to AIG levels. Not really, however I think we are all well aware of your opinions on this matter, and beating the same drum over and over again will get you nowhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twodivine Posted March 19, 2009 Report Share Posted March 19, 2009 When is TOP going to have their protectorate live up to their agreement with sending 1.7 billion in reps back to MCXA. Seems that we would all see a crap load of aid being pumped into MCXA, but with looking at the aid screens for TSO there isn't jack being sent. If TOP is protecting such great people then shouldn't they be encouraging their protectorate to uphold their agreements before extending an extension of the original protectorate that ended up being such a bad PR hit for TOP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted March 19, 2009 Report Share Posted March 19, 2009 Not really, however I think we are all well aware of your opinions on this matter, and beating the same drum over and over again will get you nowhere. We just think that eventually we will get the nose plugs out of your nose so you can smell what we all smell in regards to TSO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Urmom Posted March 19, 2009 Report Share Posted March 19, 2009 o/ TOP o/ TSO Hopefully this extension will further allow you to get on your feet as an alliance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gopherbashi Posted March 19, 2009 Report Share Posted March 19, 2009 When is TOP going to have their protectorate live up to their agreement with sending 1.7 billion in reps back to MCXA. Seems that we would all see a crap load of aid being pumped into MCXA, but with looking at the aid screens for TSO there isn't jack being sent. In fairness, I will say that the delay in question was caused on our end, and not TSO's. I expect the situation to be remedied within the week. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keltoi Posted March 19, 2009 Report Share Posted March 19, 2009 When is TOP going to have their protectorate live up to their agreement with sending 1.7 billion in reps back to MCXA. Seems that we would all see a crap load of aid being pumped into MCXA, but with looking at the aid screens for TSO there isn't jack being sent.If TOP is protecting such great people then shouldn't they be encouraging their protectorate to uphold their agreements before extending an extension of the original protectorate that ended up being such a bad PR hit for TOP. Actually MCXA has requested a delay, seems simple enough to verify Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WalkerNinja Posted March 19, 2009 Report Share Posted March 19, 2009 (edited) If you don't want to be insulted, perhaps you shouldn't be protecting an alliance that eludes failure from its every pore. Everything that TSO has done or can be connected to, from the MCXA forums to the very creation of their alliance, has eluded this very distinct odor. I think that the word you're looking for is exudes. It rather changes the meaning of the post that you wrote, unless you intended to communicate that you support this treaty. But since everyone is bent on repeating everything that was said in the first thread, I'll have a go at it too: MCXA has big-boy pants. They wear them quite well without your assistance. Nor do they need any help tying their shoes. If they had detected this alleged odor that TSO is exuding they would have undoubtedly done something to eliminate the source of that noxious fragrance. Perhaps they might even say to us, their treaty partners, "No, we're really not comfortable with you extending your treaty with those people that attacked us." This was not said because it is simply not the case. Bob, I really like you. I feel a sort of kinship with you, one former ODN government leader to another. Because that is the case, I'll give you a head's up. What you (and others) are implying is that TOP has violated their treaty with MCXA, and that MCXA is utterly helpless to do anything about it. You are implying this by stating that TSO has acted aggressively (and with malice) against MCXA and that we are helping them. I know that we do not appreciate the former implication, and I sincerely doubt that MCXA appreciates the latter. So if you're not here for our benefit, or TSO's, or MCXA's, whose purpose are you serving? Edited March 19, 2009 by WalkerNinja Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilien Posted March 19, 2009 Report Share Posted March 19, 2009 TOP is a sovereign alliance, and can choose who it wants to sign treaties with. But I definitely would not have extended this, especially in the current climate. You're giving way too much to the other side, way too easily. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uaciaut Posted March 19, 2009 Report Share Posted March 19, 2009 You are correct my friend Feel free to PM me if you want any clarification. I've only seen one MK member post negatively on this, one who isn't even gov. Doesn't equate to the whole alliance imo >.> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hasin Posted March 19, 2009 Report Share Posted March 19, 2009 TOP is a sovereign alliance, and can choose who it wants to sign treaties with. But I definitely would not have extended this, especially in the current climate. You're giving way too much to the other side, way too easily. I'm not sure what you mean by current climate and other side. If you want to clarify this I'll be happy to offer a response if one is necessary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilien Posted March 19, 2009 Report Share Posted March 19, 2009 I'm not sure what you mean by current climate and other side. If you want to clarify this I'll be happy to offer a response if one is necessary. Who remembers what happens when people from opposite sides of the web start calling each other out and shedding diplomatic language? Anyone? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hasin Posted March 19, 2009 Report Share Posted March 19, 2009 Who remembers what happens when people from opposite sides of the web start calling each other out and shedding diplomatic language? Anyone? Ahh, well in response I'd like to point out that from the current MDP web 'sides' are indeterminable. Unless by 'other side' you mean everyone were not allied to, then I must say I fear for our safety. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cairna Posted March 19, 2009 Report Share Posted March 19, 2009 The initial TSO treaty signing. Didn't comment on that, but I'm still pretty happy that it made the list. My point is that I find it ironic that alliance that attacked Polar for general impoliteness and hostility towards people that were neither allies nor friends is doing such a strange thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilien Posted March 19, 2009 Report Share Posted March 19, 2009 Ahh, well in response I'd like to point out that from the current MDP web 'sides' are indeterminable. Unless by 'other side' you mean everyone were not allied to, then I must say I fear for our safety. Thanks for putting a diplomatic face on. We're all friends here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ROMMELHSQ Posted March 19, 2009 Report Share Posted March 19, 2009 Who remembers what happens when people from opposite sides of the web start calling each other out and shedding diplomatic language? Anyone? Not sure if I understand correctly, but I think this advice should go to the other "side" rather than TOP's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neuromancer7 Posted March 19, 2009 Report Share Posted March 19, 2009 In fairness, I will say that the delay in question was caused on our end, and not TSO's. I expect the situation to be remedied within the week. Thank you old friend, for nipping this in the bud. Hail to you and yours. Despite our differences, Know that I'm here if you need anything I can provide. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bkphysics Posted March 19, 2009 Report Share Posted March 19, 2009 Bob, I really like you. I feel a sort of kinship with you, one former ODN government leader to another. Because that is the case, I'll give you a head's up. What you (and others) are implying is that TOP has violated their treaty with MCXA, and that MCXA is utterly helpless to do anything about it. You are implying this by stating that TSO has acted aggressively (and with malice) against MCXA and that we are helping them. I know that we do not appreciate the former implication, and I sincerely doubt that MCXA appreciates the latter. So if you're not here for our benefit, or TSO's, or MCXA's, whose purpose are you serving? Stating an opinion doesn't always have to serve a purpose. Many, and frankly they are justified, think this whole TSO debacle was a cluster of poor choices and ineptitude that peaked into a very well respected alliance making a very poor choice. Granted TOP was not given full disclosure from the get go, but once things were made clear they didn't exactly go out of their way to do good on their mistake. By doing good, I imply withdrawing a protectorate agreement that was made under false pretenses. In fact, that seems like one of those 'duh' moments when you decide to rescind an offer after you have been misled. However, TOP is sovereign, they do what they want, and rightfully so. Just don't expect much praise, and I wouldn't expect all of your close allies/friends to jump up and down with joy over what has become of this situation. Thankfully the GGA trumped you all when they did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hasin Posted March 19, 2009 Report Share Posted March 19, 2009 Thanks for putting a diplomatic face on. We're all friends here. I seriously have nothing against these alliances, sure they don't like one of our allies, perhaps they even hate one of our allies. If they want to start disliking us because of that, there's not much we can do. Sure we can try to explain and smile and nod graciously, but if that doesn't work there's not much else we can do. I don't see the point in going out and creating sides out of thin air. 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.