Delta1212 Posted March 24, 2009 Report Share Posted March 24, 2009 It's pretty flawed actually. IRON informed VE of their intent to cancel last night, and VE posting first doesn't exactly change that. Where in any logical sense does that make VE the first one to cancel? Under bridges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dani C Posted March 24, 2009 Report Share Posted March 24, 2009 VE keeping it real as always.You know we've got your back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homura Posted March 24, 2009 Report Share Posted March 24, 2009 Now what exactly prompted this chain of events? Last time I remember VE cancelled a treaty with a major alliance it was because the certain major alliance's leader was being what might be described as undiplomatic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Wilson Posted March 24, 2009 Report Share Posted March 24, 2009 It's pretty flawed actually. IRON informed VE of their intent to cancel last night, and VE posting first doesn't exactly change that. Where in any logical sense does that make VE the first one to cancel?I think it's great that VE decided to finally grow a pair and cancel. It's been pretty obvious that you guys weren't content with the alliances ties were broken with, though kind of late, don't you think? I know. I said its flawed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beauty Posted March 24, 2009 Report Share Posted March 24, 2009 (edited) Now, VE is an alliance version of a hustla.... In a good way and its Avatar Related Edited March 24, 2009 by Rotavele Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Z Posted March 24, 2009 Report Share Posted March 24, 2009 Snip Hey there DJ. I hope everything is going well for you? I'm glad to see you still somewhat around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freelancer Posted March 24, 2009 Report Share Posted March 24, 2009 (edited) Now what exactly prompted this chain of events? Last time I remember VE cancelled a treaty with a major alliance it was because the certain major alliance's leader was being what might be described as undiplomatic. Thats the story I wana read, hopefully this comes to light, or the boys at The Tattler or TWIP have something to add. Edited March 24, 2009 by Freelancer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaGneT Posted March 24, 2009 Report Share Posted March 24, 2009 (edited) Now what exactly prompted this chain of events? Last time I remember VE cancelled a treaty with a major alliance it was because the certain major alliance's leader was being what might be described as undiplomatic. Oh, come on. Don't take away their moment by bringing up an unrelated but pathetic one. EDIT: [ooc] 1000th post [/ooc] Edited March 24, 2009 by MaGneT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnCapistan Posted March 24, 2009 Report Share Posted March 24, 2009 Now what exactly prompted this chain of events? Last time I remember VE cancelled a treaty with a major alliance it was because the certain major alliance's leader was being what might be described as undiplomatic. Are we referring to Electron Sponge before the Pacifica-Polaris dispute? I'm just curious? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Il Principe Posted March 24, 2009 Report Share Posted March 24, 2009 Wow, bold move. On another note, does this means that the MDP-web can be drawn in 2D again and not in 3D. VE was one of the ties that held two clusters together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anu Drake Posted March 24, 2009 Report Share Posted March 24, 2009 Canceling treaties is one thing, insulting former partners that have done a great deal with and for you on the way out is another. Hope the air is nice and crisp up in that tower, VE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilien Posted March 24, 2009 Report Share Posted March 24, 2009 Canceling treaties is one thing, insulting former partners that have done a great deal with and for you on the way out is another. Hope the air is nice and crisp up in that tower, VE. And where are these insults, exactly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terveis Posted March 24, 2009 Report Share Posted March 24, 2009 Canceling treaties is one thing, insulting former partners that have done a great deal with and for you on the way out is another. Hope the air is nice and crisp up in that tower, VE. Are they lying, or is telling things as they are considered insulting now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nintenderek Posted March 24, 2009 Report Share Posted March 24, 2009 Oh sometimes you really do make me lol.thank you for that. Don't give me that. I think anyone who's allied to GGA might be pretty pissed at VE for this thread. I've been going on about it for several days. I think it was quite clear as the thread went on, that someone was wanting VE to close it, and something tells me it wasn't VE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Stark Posted March 24, 2009 Report Share Posted March 24, 2009 Bold move VE. I hope other alliances will follow in your footsteps and evaluate all of their treaties based on the same principals you posted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebel Virginia Posted March 24, 2009 Report Share Posted March 24, 2009 Canceling treaties is one thing, insulting former partners that have done a great deal with and for you on the way out is another. Hope the air is nice and crisp up in that tower, VE. Do I sense some hostility? I really fail to see how they have insulted former treaty partners. Is giving reasons an insult now? If anything the world needs more openness instead of the culture of private channels we currently have, that have damned us to nigh eternal stagnation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anu Drake Posted March 24, 2009 Report Share Posted March 24, 2009 And where are these insults, exactly? Just because it is done poetically and in statements of further policy doesn't mean it isn't obvious what is meant. Did this announcement require the statements: * The Viridian Entente does not wish to be allied to those whose support will only be given when they deem fit. * The Viridian Entente does not wish to be allied to those who attempt to use political pressure to influence our sovereign actions. * The Viridian Entente does not wish to be allied to those who cannot be honest, forthright, and frank with us about their intentions and reasoning. The message was clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AvengerNL Posted March 24, 2009 Report Share Posted March 24, 2009 Canceling treaties is one thing, insulting former partners that have done a great deal with and for you on the way out is another. Hope the air is nice and crisp up in that tower, VE. NATO has had her share in dropping treaties for similar reasons Anu, dont be like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dilber Posted March 24, 2009 Report Share Posted March 24, 2009 To VE: I know why, you know why, we'll leave it at that.To CN: Do what VE did when Dilber and friends come knocking. I haven't actually been on in close to 3 weeks. I do like having things attributed to me. Continue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chickenzilla Posted March 24, 2009 Report Share Posted March 24, 2009 RV, Anu benifits from being in the status quo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nintenderek Posted March 24, 2009 Report Share Posted March 24, 2009 Canceling treaties is one thing, insulting former partners that have done a great deal with and for you on the way out is another. Hope the air is nice and crisp up in that tower, VE. I fail to see how VE has insulted anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Wilson Posted March 24, 2009 Report Share Posted March 24, 2009 Just because it is done poetically and in statements of further policy doesn't mean it isn't obvious what is meant. Did this announcement require the statements:The message was clear. Yes, it told us why they were canceling the treaties. What is your point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anu Drake Posted March 24, 2009 Report Share Posted March 24, 2009 NATO has had her share in dropping treaties for similar reasons Anu, dont be like this. No, we have had dropped treaties in which we state that we wish the other party well and hope that things improve in the future. We haven't taken the moment to express our superiority in the other alliances practices. /forget it, this is not my fight, enjoy... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnCapistan Posted March 24, 2009 Report Share Posted March 24, 2009 Don't give me that. I think anyone who's allied to GGA might be pretty pissed at VE for this thread. I've been going on about it for several days. I think it was quite clear as the thread went on, that someone was wanting VE to close it, and something tells me it wasn't VE. As I recall it was a VE member that got it closed. Hellscream is his name. He bragged about it in IRC lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Comrade Mao Posted March 24, 2009 Report Share Posted March 24, 2009 Thank you for the apology, VE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts