Hyperion321 Posted April 29, 2009 Report Share Posted April 29, 2009 A large part of your autobiography is in my sig, another part involves you eagerly taking the word of someone who had been ZIed for spying by ODN, Tempest and Valhalla at face value and acting the fool. Don't throw stones in a glass house my friend. Oh look. A thread I posted years ago when I had no idea how to run an alliance and some friends played a practical joke on me. wow bob, you really got me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juan M Posted April 29, 2009 Report Share Posted April 29, 2009 Go get them Valhalla!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Srqt Posted April 29, 2009 Report Share Posted April 29, 2009 A large part of your autobiography is in my sig, another part involves you eagerly taking the word of someone who had been ZIed for spying by ODN, Tempest and Valhalla at face value and acting the fool. Don't throw stones in a glass house my friend. this post is very relevant to the topic at hand. I would love it if a valhallan would fill a defensive slot on me, I promise plenty of casualties for you if you do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fireguy15207 Posted April 29, 2009 Report Share Posted April 29, 2009 Give 'em hell, Fark. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Havamil Posted April 29, 2009 Report Share Posted April 29, 2009 Unless you aren't attacking umbrella back the DoW makes perfect sense. they are still defending their friend even if hey activated an aggressive clause in a treaty to do so. not ever sentence is worded in a way that is meant to hold up in a court of E-law. I dont think it takes an e-lawyer to find the problem with that statement Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChairmanHal Posted April 29, 2009 Report Share Posted April 29, 2009 Ideally we'd have PB-Valhalla on you guys, because we can't handle any of you. Unlike Valhalla, Umbrella only has fun in stomps where the odds are >10:1.Anyway, the truth is that we don't have enough nations to tango with your lower ranks, and heard that they were getting a bit anxious and bored. Being the good war-hosts that we are, we naturally arranged for this problem to be alleviated. Good luck to the younger vikings who are about to enter a righteously painful world. Come on, you think we'd really want to spoil all of the fun we've been having? Fair enough, Valhalla welcomes Fark's ankle biters to the fight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Srqt Posted April 29, 2009 Report Share Posted April 29, 2009 I dont think it takes an e-lawyer to find the problem with that statement Really? Because if you are attacking umbrella back and Farkistan is jumping into this war to defend them form said counter attacks I do not see how their DoW is poorly worded. Any argument against the word 'defend' in this DoW is nothing but e-lawyering. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tautology Posted April 29, 2009 Report Share Posted April 29, 2009 Fark once again shows how it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Sanders Posted April 29, 2009 Report Share Posted April 29, 2009 Because you always think before you post right? That must be why you have one of the most ridiculous and famous quotes in CN. OOC: Actually that quote had nothing to do with not thinking, it had everything to do with having 12 channels tiled in my mIRC which caused the "did you" part of the quote to be out of view after editing the rest of my sentence. You can keep claiming that the quote makes me stupid but that won't make it true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Havamil Posted April 29, 2009 Report Share Posted April 29, 2009 Really? Because if you are attacking umbrella back and Farkistan is jumping into this war to defend them form said counter attacks I do not see how their DoW is poorly worded. Any argument against the word 'defend' in this DoW is nothing but e-lawyering. So by defending yourself you are the aggressor. Makes perfect sense. It's wonderful the way you keep proving that you are what you say your fighting against. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted April 29, 2009 Report Share Posted April 29, 2009 Good luck to our allies in Valhalla. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nobama Posted April 29, 2009 Report Share Posted April 29, 2009 OOC: Actually that quote had nothing to do with not thinking, it had everything to do with having 12 channels tiled in my mIRC which caused the "did you" part of the quote to be out of view after editing the rest of my sentence. You can keep claiming that the quote makes me stupid but that won't make it true. Oh, that's not the only thing. It's just one of the greatest examples. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earogema Posted April 29, 2009 Report Share Posted April 29, 2009 Oh, that's not the only thing. It's just one of the greatest examples. Indeed. The drunk posting in the Sparta cancellation thread was also hilarious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delta1212 Posted April 29, 2009 Report Share Posted April 29, 2009 So by defending yourself you are the aggressor. Makes perfect sense. It's wonderful the way you keep proving that you are what you say your fighting against. Legally, Fark activated an oA clause to declare on you. Doesn't mean they didn't do it to defend Umbrella. Unless declaring in defense of TPF doesn't count because they declared war first? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainImpavid Posted April 29, 2009 Report Share Posted April 29, 2009 Fair enough, Valhalla welcomes Fark's ankle biters to the fight. Fark's roots are ankle biting and toe chomping. I'm not sure I'd be so eager to welcome that. I'd pray instead they just rain nuclear fire on you, it will hurt less and be over faster. The things they can do with those little graspy hands, though... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Srqt Posted April 29, 2009 Report Share Posted April 29, 2009 So by defending yourself you are the aggressor. Makes perfect sense. It's wonderful the way you keep proving that you are what you say your fighting against. No one is saying you are the aggressor. They aren't saying defense in a "legal" sense in regards to what part of the treaty they are activating they are just saying "hey we are helping our friends fight Valhalla". Like I said not every sentence is made in an attempt to hold up in E-court some people just like to talk like normal people. OOC if I go to a bar and my friend starts !@#$ and some other people start to hit him I will com in to defend him even though he was the aggressor. see how that works? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Levistus Posted April 29, 2009 Report Share Posted April 29, 2009 Really? Because if you are attacking umbrella back and Farkistan is jumping into this war to defend them form said counter attacks I do not see how their DoW is poorly worded. Any argument against the word 'defend' in this DoW is nothing but e-lawyering. Then under your definition, every MDP is actually an MADP. Good thing you're here to tell us these things KingSqrt. KingSqrt: Redefining treaties as he sees fit since 2007. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Srqt Posted April 29, 2009 Report Share Posted April 29, 2009 Then under your definition, every MDP is actually an MADP. Good thing you're here to tell us these things KingSqrt.KingSqrt: Redefining treaties as he sees fit since 2007. It is amazing how no matter how many times I say the word wasn't used in a legal way to define the treaty you keep talking like I am saying it in a legal way to define a treaty. learn to read then come back to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delta1212 Posted April 29, 2009 Report Share Posted April 29, 2009 (edited) Then under your definition, every MDP is actually an MADP. Good thing you're here to tell us these things KingSqrt.KingSqrt: Redefining treaties as he sees fit since 2007. No, but MDoAPs are MADPs when the people who hold them feel like it. Edited April 29, 2009 by Delta1212 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainImpavid Posted April 29, 2009 Report Share Posted April 29, 2009 Legally, Fark activated an oA clause to declare on you. Doesn't mean they didn't do it to defend Umbrella. Unless declaring in defense of TPF doesn't count because they declared war first? /me gets his English Degree-holder decoder ring out... Actually he's right. While in the technical legal sense Farkistan is entering in through an oA clause, it is not technically wrong to say that they are acting in defense of Umbrella. It could as easily mean "we don't particularly have an issue with Valhalla, so our major reason for being here is in support of a friend, Umbrella." Which is a lot longer and clumsier a sentence. And it is all a completely irrelevant point anyway. War is engaged, for whatever reason, through legitimate treaty obligations and ties. Complaining about it as some sort of ethical issue only really serves to illustrate how unfamiliar you are with the general ethical standards in play here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Levistus Posted April 29, 2009 Report Share Posted April 29, 2009 Complaining about it as some sort of ethical issue only really serves to illustrate how unfamiliar you are with the general ethical standards in play here. oh, we're all quite familiar with the ethical values, or lack there of, involved in activating treaties. KingSqrt just chose to defend a wording and in doing so made a gross generalization of how treaties work. I am quite aware that this discussion will have no impact on the DoW itself. My original response was merely sarcastic, as nearly all DoW's include a citation of the treaty being activated in some way to legitimize the DoW. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Srqt Posted April 29, 2009 Report Share Posted April 29, 2009 oh, we're all quite familiar with the ethical values, or lack there of, involved in activating treaties. KingSqrt just chose to defend a wording and in doing so made a gross generalization of how treaties work. I am quite aware that this discussion will have no impact on the DoW itself. My original response was merely sarcastic, as nearly all DoW's include a citation of the treaty being activated in some way to legitimize the DoW. FOR THE LOVE OF GOD I WAS NOT TALKING ABOUT "HOW TREATIES WORK". try reading a post before you attempt to analyze it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nobama Posted April 29, 2009 Report Share Posted April 29, 2009 FOR THE LOVE OF GOD I WAS NOT TALKING ABOUT "HOW TREATIES WORK". try reading a post before you attempt to analyze it. /me grits teeth and avoids spewing the meme. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JLP Posted April 29, 2009 Report Share Posted April 29, 2009 /engage! You rang? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Sanders Posted April 29, 2009 Report Share Posted April 29, 2009 (edited) Indeed.The drunk posting in the Sparta cancellation thread was also hilarious. Considering the truth contained in those posts which has played out since then you may want to look for another example. Edited April 29, 2009 by Bob Sanders 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.