Announcement from the Viridian Entente

[Nizzle]

I truly want competition. Do not be so quick to assume becuase I am a member of a major allaince that I enjoy the status quo or are only making these statements to goad alliances to their doom.

If you really wanted competition you would start a bloc opposite NPO and try to take the number one spot. Instead, you are doing the opposite and maintain the status quo.

[Mogar]

If you really wanted competition you would start a bloc opposite NPO and try to take the number one spot. Instead, you are doing the opposite and maintain the status quo.

and risk losing their pixels? why would anyone do that?

[bkphysics]

Love how the hypocrisy starts getting pointed out and it becomes a fast dash to the thread exit

Speaking of which, things have gotten really out of hand in this thread. IRON canceled their treaty, VE announced it and canceled two more. Sorry if someone felt some ouchies because their toes got stepped on, but life will go on.

[SWAT128]

Can't we all just get along?

[Sovyet Gelibolu]

To the International, this is why I really wish you went to the RIA for mediation like we offered, we were at the table as a neutral mutual ally who really just wanted the situation resolved in a way that was beneficial to both parties. I hope you see that going to the local schoolyard bullies is just getting your alliance and the whole situation used as political leverage and propaganda while people throw out half truths.

Ask Delta: I did just that, and while RIA's participation as mediator was overshadowed in later discussions by IRON's and TORN's, it was invaluable in cooling heads during the early evening. Now, I don't really appreciate you calling other alliances (allies of ours and of theirs) "schoolyard bullies", but your point about half-truths is fairly valid for a fair number of the people who have spoken in this thread.

We in The International would prefer to consider this whole issue resolved, particularly now that apologies on behalf of more than one party have been issued. I'd appreciate it if other alliances would stop making reference to us in this thread, well-intentioned or ill-intentioned though these alliances may be. This is VE's thread, and I'm sure they'd appreciate it if it would remain that way, rather than a stirring-up of a settled spat.

EDIT: I figured out a way to alliterate the ending, so I did it.

Edited March 24, 2009 by Sovyet Gelibolu

[Heft]

I really don't want to keep picking on you here, but really, why would one not speak up if they feel a situation needs to be addressed, regardless of the size of the alliance with which one feels aggrieved? It's partly this mentality that has led to a great deal of the stagnation that is CN today, imo. "Sheesh, Alliance X is bullying in our foreign affairs and really butting in where they're not wanted/needed, but hey, they are part of Q/Citadel/SF/etc, so we can't say anything. They might kill us!"

That mindset is one I am not comfortable with, personally. I would rather state true feelings on a subject, and if others' interpretations are that this is cause for them to strike me down, I guess that's really up to them. Also kind of a statement about who they are as a ruler/alliance, tbh.

E-fell in love with '.

Situation 1: You see a squirrel messing up your garden.

Situation 2: You see a gorilla messing up your garden.

Any rational person would respond differently to these situations, despite the offense being exactly the same. I've never said you can't oppose someone more powerful than you, or that appeasement is good. It's more likely that if you find yourself constantly trying to appease those more powerful than you than eventually they'll get tired of you and leave you to rot, anyway. All I'm saying is that you're going to have to put more thought and care into challenging a gorilla than a squirrel if you want to come out with your limbs intact. That there seems to be a sizable contingent on these forums that believe charging the gorilla and screaming madly with only your bare hands and teeth is the most "honorable" and therefore best approach is as much a problem as the gorilla's oppressive tendencies (if that's what you believe about them). Why? Because if everyone rushes impotently over and over again, nothing really gets accomplished, and all the bluster about change and oppressive paradigms needing to be upset remains nothing more than impotent whinging.

You can challenge whoever you want however you want, but if you want that challenge to mean anything, then you'll treat certain people differently than other people. It's not dishonorable or immoral, it's rational and common sense.

[Nintenderek]

I wish VE truly would have had the balls to not back down on their ultimatum.

I loled for a good long while at this comment. Mostly, because it is coming from the alliance where your own MoD has told me how much your military sucks.

[Rayvon]

You can challenge whoever you want however you want, but if you want that challenge to mean anything, then you'll treat certain people differently than other people. It's not dishonorable or immoral, it's rational and common sense.

Indeed. Such forces as said gorilla needs to be met with group force rather than several small meaningless pokes.

[Mogar]

Situation 1: You see a squirrel messing up your garden.

Situation 2: You see a gorilla messing up your garden.

Any rational person would respond differently to these situations, despite the offense being exactly the same. I've never said you can't oppose someone more powerful than you, or that appeasement is good. It's more likely that if you find yourself constantly trying to appease those more powerful than you than eventually they'll get tired of you and leave you to rot, anyway. All I'm saying is that you're going to have to put more thought and care into challenging a gorilla than a squirrel if you want to come out with your limbs intact.

this is the issue with the cyberverse right now, I might lose a war with them, so I'll give them whatever they want. If someone wrongs you, then they wronged you, it doesn't matter how big they are, you should stand up for yourself or everyone will see you as weak, alliances such as freaksafari(probably a bad example at the moment) or the CnG alliances, went into wars knowing full well they'd lose, yet are more respected than alliances 10 times their size. why? because they stood up for themselves without caring about the odds.

Situation 1: I shoot it

Situation 2: I shoot it

I consider myself to be quite rational.

as do I.

Edited March 24, 2009 by Mogar

[King Srqt]

Situation 1: You see a squirrel messing up your garden.

Situation 2: You see a gorilla messing up your garden.

Any rational person would respond differently to these situations, despite the offense being exactly the same. I've never said you can't oppose someone more powerful than you, or that appeasement is good. It's more likely that if you find yourself constantly trying to appease those more powerful than you than eventually they'll get tired of you and leave you to rot, anyway. All I'm saying is that you're going to have to put more thought and care into challenging a gorilla than a squirrel if you want to come out with your limbs intact. That there seems to be a sizable contingent on these forums that believe charging the gorilla and screaming madly with only your bare hands and teeth is the most "honorable" and therefore best approach is as much a problem as the gorilla's oppressive tendencies (if that's what you believe about them). Why? Because if everyone rushes impotently over and over again, nothing really gets accomplished, and all the bluster about change and oppressive paradigms needing to be upset remains nothing more than impotent whinging.

You can challenge whoever you want however you want, but if you want that challenge to mean anything, then you'll treat certain people differently than other people. It's not dishonorable or immoral, it's rational and common sense.

Situation 1: I shoot it

Situation 2: I shoot it

I consider myself to be quite rational.

Edited March 24, 2009 by KingSrqt

[sethb]

Right now shooting a 'Gorilla' sounds pretty good to me.

[Sovyet Gelibolu]

This has been rendered irrelevant by earlier posts. Carry on.

Edited March 24, 2009 by Sovyet Gelibolu

[Satsukage]

Good Luck

[Virillus]

Ask Delta: I did just that, and while RIA's participation as mediator was overshadowed in later discussions by IRON's and TORN's, it was invaluable in cooling heads during the early evening. Now, I don't really appreciate you calling other alliances (allies of ours and of theirs) "schoolyard bullies", but your point about half-truths is fairly valid for a fair number of the people who have spoken in this thread.

We in The International would prefer to consider this whole issue resolved, particularly now that apologies on behalf of more than one party have been issued. I'd appreciate it if other alliances would stop making reference to us in this thread, well-intentioned or ill-intentioned though these alliances may be. This is VE's thread, and I'm sure they'd appreciate it if it would remain that way, rather than a stirring-up of a settled spat.

EDIT: I figured out a way to alliterate the ending, so I did it.

Well said, man. - Good post.

[Ardus]

Can't we all just get along?

Absolutely not.

[Authur]

Love how the hypocrisy starts getting pointed out and it becomes a fast dash to the thread exit

Speaking of which, things have gotten really out of hand in this thread. IRON canceled their treaty, VE announced it and canceled two more. Sorry if someone felt some ouchies because their toes got stepped on, but life will go on.

I exited because I did not wish to face the wrath of the "Gods" for going so far off topic. In the appropriate thread I would gladly continue this discussion especially since so many have misunderstood/misrepresented my views on this matter.

[Galapagos]

I exited because I did not wish to face the wrath of the "Gods" for going so far off topic. In the appropriate thread I would gladly continue this discussion especially since so many have misunderstood/misrepresented my views on this matter.

Could be you aren't as articulate as you think.

[joracy]

Situation 1: I shoot it

Situation 2: I shoot it

I consider myself to be quite rational.

I'm still laughing at this post after the first time I read it :lol:

[Ardus]

Situation 1: I shoot it

Situation 2: I shoot it

I consider myself to be quite rational.

Whelp... I think we can all move on from this thread now. Won't be going up any from here.

[Authur]

Could be you aren't as articulate as you think.

I have no delusions of my skills. It very well may be my inability to articulate the point clearly enough. The prejudice shown me here, simply due to my alliance of choice, doesn't help though. Some of you really shouldn't be so quick to judge or presume you understand a persons intentions.

[WarriorConcept]

I'm still laughing at this post after the first time I read it :lol:

Srqt is very unbias with his bullets

[WarriorConcept]

I have no delusions of my skills. It very well may be my inability to articulate the point clearly enough. The prejudice shown me here, simply due to my alliance of choice, doesn't help though. Some of you really shouldn't be so quick to judge or presume you understand a persons intentions.

The "prejudice" as you call it is a very valid variable when dissecting your plea or "intentions." It really just goes to show your hypocrisy, whether you care to admit it or not.

[Bob Janova]

I have no delusions of my skills. It very well may be my inability to articulate the point clearly enough. The prejudice shown me here, simply due to my alliance of choice, doesn't help though. Some of you really shouldn't be so quick to judge or presume you understand a persons intentions.

Now I've stayed out of this little argument because it is rather petty and not relevant to VE or to any of the alliances they cancelled on. But surely you can see that claiming to be in favour of fair wars and strong opposition while sitting in an alliance that is in second place, and seemingly happy with that position, means one or more of these things:

1. You are trying to change IRON's foreign policy from the inside and meeting strong resistance

2. You are not serious about your claims but like to make them anyway

3. You are too weak to have any effect but like to rage against the machine

4. You do not have the courage to move to a smaller alliance where you can change the world more easily

None of those options make you look good and they make your choice of alliance relevant if you want to make statements like those that you are.

Now this is a pointless argument and the people who want a fair fight need to pair off and have one

[joracy]

Now I've stayed out of this little argument because it is rather petty and not relevant to VE or to any of the alliances they cancelled on. But surely you can see that claiming to be in favour of fair wars and strong opposition while sitting in an alliance that is in second place, and seemingly happy with that position, means one or more of these things:

1. You are trying to change IRON's foreign policy from the inside and meeting strong resistance

2. You are not serious about your claims but like to make them anyway

3. You are too weak to have any effect but like to rage against the machine

4. You do not have the courage to move to a smaller alliance where you can change the world more easily

None of those options make you look good and they make your choice of alliance relevant if you want to make statements like those that you are.

Now this is a pointless argument and the people who want a fair fight need to pair off and have one

CN 1 on 1 night(...or week? Month? One night isn't very long )

Fun for the participates, and we can all bet large amounts of money for fun!

Edited March 24, 2009 by joracy

[Free Quebec]

Now there's a blast from the past. Hi FQ!

Hello Janova. Nice to see gramlins so strongl. Is Puritan still playing with you?

Hello old GPA crew (Busty, Shay, Paradigm, Mike)

And hello VE of course!