Ghostlin Posted April 12, 2009 Report Share Posted April 12, 2009 Caffine1 is very familiar with treaty changes that are "less risky and more profitable", I'm sure your good friends ERR ex-friends from Bleu can attest to that. Lee, do you think Echelon ever got their knives back from those "less risky and more profitable" decisions? That's why I found the entire comment ironic that even seemed like criticism for Rok knowing that track record. Back to the cancellation; if people doubt the reasons for the cancellation, I don't think they were, by any means blithe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
General Specific Posted April 12, 2009 Report Share Posted April 12, 2009 RoK and Vox are allies??Gratz on the treaty! Where's the announcement? If I recall correctly, I think you wrote it and got distracted during your massage at the BnT School of Body Hair Management. So guess it was never posted. Also, my lawn, you are still on it. Now where were we? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vijaya Posted April 12, 2009 Report Share Posted April 12, 2009 (edited) I've enjoyed reading all the speculation and educated guesses in this thread. I must finally conclude that we are all the pawns of Vox, since they are the only ones who actually know the full scope of the dark forces at work behind such events. But, that said, I want to wish our allies in RoK all the best. As for NPO, the caliber of those NPO members I've known makes me confident that if they have, in fact, made mistakes, they are smart enough to learn from them and move forward better for the experience. Edited April 12, 2009 by Valdemar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hizzy Posted April 12, 2009 Report Share Posted April 12, 2009 Lee, do you think Echelon ever got their knives back from those "less risky and more profitable" decisions? Naaa, we're holding on to these for now. They can come get them if they want, but that wouldn't be the least risky route so I doubt it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rishnokof Posted April 12, 2009 Report Share Posted April 12, 2009 RoK and Vox are allies??Gratz on the treaty! Where's the announcement? Ssshhh, our MDAP with Vox will be the centerfold of next weeks Tattler. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecha Sheikh Posted April 12, 2009 Report Share Posted April 12, 2009 Ssshhh, our MDAP with Vox will be the centerfold of next weeks Tattler. I thought your bikini shoot was going to be the centerfold?! *cancels Tattler subscription* Also, this was an amazingly aptly named treaty. So many conspiracy theorists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted April 12, 2009 Report Share Posted April 12, 2009 The name of the treaty is really a pretty good clue that it was political (advantageous for both sides, but an alignment of temporary interests only) in the first place, actually. And what is this, a RV post that I have to agree with? )): Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilien Posted April 12, 2009 Report Share Posted April 12, 2009 The name of the treaty is really a pretty good clue that it was political (advantageous for both sides, but an alignment of temporary interests only) in the first place, actually.And what is this, a RV post that I have to agree with? )): As far as I'm aware, there's only one more Tin Foil Hat treaty remaining. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted April 12, 2009 Report Share Posted April 12, 2009 Yes there is. I'm sure you're also aware that we don't generally need a ToA to express our amity, and that treaty is an expression to the tin foil hat wearers that although the NPO and ourselves do not have another treaty, we have no intention of being hostile to each other. I think it's a bit different with a ToA or a PIAT than it is with an MDP – ToAs and PIATs are always political treaties. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
President Obama Posted April 12, 2009 Report Share Posted April 12, 2009 The name of the treaty is really a pretty good clue that it was political (advantageous for both sides, but an alignment of temporary interests only) in the first place, actually. lol Also, Rebel Virginia's post was great. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilien Posted April 12, 2009 Report Share Posted April 12, 2009 Yes there is. I'm sure you're also aware that we don't generally need a ToA to express our amity, and that treaty is an expression to the tin foil hat wearers that although the NPO and ourselves do not have another treaty, we have no intention of being hostile to each other. I think it's a bit different with a ToA or a PIAT than it is with an MDP – ToAs and PIATs are always political treaties. Alright, I was just wondering whether that had any relation to your treaty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shigh707 Posted April 12, 2009 Report Share Posted April 12, 2009 Lines are being erased. Well said Londo, well said Good luck to both parties Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaiser Frederick II Posted April 12, 2009 Report Share Posted April 12, 2009 Hail our friends in Rok! o/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Stupid Posted April 12, 2009 Report Share Posted April 12, 2009 Naaa, we're holding on to these for now. They can come get them if they want, but that wouldn't be the least risky route so I doubt it. Quoted for winning the thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Van Hoo III Posted April 13, 2009 Report Share Posted April 13, 2009 The name of the treaty is really a pretty good clue that it was political (advantageous for both sides, but an alignment of temporary interests only) in the first place, actually.And what is this, a RV post that I have to agree with? )): Actually, it got it's name from the war rumors involving NPO and RoK at the time. Since the rumors kept surfacing that the NPO was going to attack Ragnarok at the exact same time that we were both sitting in backchannels getting to know eachother and formalizing a treaty, we chose a name to reflect those rumors. While I wholheartedly agree with the cancellation, this treaty took several months of work to accomplish and was not signed due to convenience on RoK's end. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Syrik Posted April 13, 2009 Report Share Posted April 13, 2009 Actually, it got it's name from the war rumors involving NPO and RoK at the time. Since the rumors kept surfacing that the NPO was going to attack Ragnarok at the exact same time that we were both sitting in backchannels getting to know eachother and formalizing a treaty, we chose a name to reflect those rumors. While I wholheartedly agree with the cancellation, this treaty took several months of work to accomplish and was not signed due to convenience on RoK's end. pfft, like you would know anything about the inner working of Ragnarok. I call your bluff and raise you 20. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alfred von Tirpitz Posted April 13, 2009 Report Share Posted April 13, 2009 pfft, like you would know anything about the inner working of Ragnarok. I call your bluff and raise you 20. Not since he got on his rickety boat, he doesn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drai Posted April 13, 2009 Report Share Posted April 13, 2009 Best of luck to both ex-signatories. This is certainly a significant cancellation, but I'm sure it was for the best. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Optical14 Posted April 14, 2009 Report Share Posted April 14, 2009 Well... 0/ rok 0/ private channel cancelations... & I bet you never see this coming... :wub: Mogar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoffron X Posted April 14, 2009 Report Share Posted April 14, 2009 (edited) While I wholheartedly agree with the cancellation, this treaty took several months of work to accomplish and was not signed due to convenience on RoK's end. As a third party who is knowledgeable about Ragnarok and at least somewhat knowledgeable about us, why exactly DO you agree with the cancellation? I ask out of curiosity. Edited April 14, 2009 by Geoffron X Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebel Virginia Posted April 14, 2009 Report Share Posted April 14, 2009 As a third party who is knowledgeable about Ragnarok and at least somewhat knowledgeable about us, why exactly DO you agree with the cancellation? I ask out of curiosity. I think it's pretty obvious that you both have rather clear disagreements on how things ought to be done around here, in addition to dislike for some of each others' allies. Why remain allied if neither party is united in objectives? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prodigal Moon Posted April 14, 2009 Report Share Posted April 14, 2009 I think it's pretty obvious that you both have rather clear disagreements on how things ought to be done around here, in addition to dislike for some of each others' allies. Why remain allied if neither party is united in objectives? You'd better stop making sense before you get run out of town on a rail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Van Hoo III Posted April 14, 2009 Report Share Posted April 14, 2009 As a third party who is knowledgeable about Ragnarok and at least somewhat knowledgeable about us, why exactly DO you agree with the cancellation? I ask out of curiosity. Because the NPO does not treat allies outside of their power blocs as equals and this is a trend that started while I was still leading Ragnarok. That and after being involved in the backchannels and discussions leading up to the last global conflict, I have now seen how the "powers that be" operate. The motivations, agendas, behind-the-scenes opinions, overall disloyalty, and general demeanor I witnessed was appalling. Several months later I still cannot get the blood off my hands for my part in that war. I'm a happier man knowing that the alliance I had a hand in founding and building is now further away from alliances like NPO, TPF and NATO ... admin forgive me for ever developing a relationship with any of them in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhawk Posted April 14, 2009 Report Share Posted April 14, 2009 I'm a happier man knowing that the alliance I had a hand in founding and building is now further away from alliances like NPO, TPF and NATO ... admin forgive me for ever developing a relationship with any of them in the first place. Burns deep hoo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Van Hoo III Posted April 14, 2009 Report Share Posted April 14, 2009 Burns deep hoo. Guilty by association, my friend. 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.