dejarue Posted August 13, 2009 Report Share Posted August 13, 2009 So what to what, exactly?It seems fairly pointless, and not a small amount ignorant, to come into a discussion just to say "so what". If it isn't worthy of your venerable response or concern then why read it or comment at all? The very fact that you would take the time to read "pretty much the entire thing" of a 37 page discussion betrays the expressed "truth" in your indifference. I usually read things fairly well through before commenting on them. And what about saying "so what" is "not a small amount ignorant"? How does ignorance even play into that? And why comment on it? Because NSO is becoming somewhat of a celebrity for these things. These stunts for attention are working, and for the life of me, I'm not even sure why. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hydro Posted August 13, 2009 Report Share Posted August 13, 2009 I usually read things fairly well through before commenting on them. And what enlightening comments you've made too! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dejarue Posted August 13, 2009 Report Share Posted August 13, 2009 Thanks! I got them on sale. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewPoseidon Posted August 13, 2009 Report Share Posted August 13, 2009 "We'll do whatever we think is a good idea." Ummm, ok. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torak Posted August 13, 2009 Report Share Posted August 13, 2009 Bump for great justice Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guido Posted August 14, 2009 Report Share Posted August 14, 2009 So what to what, exactly?It seems fairly pointless, and not a small amount ignorant, to come into a discussion just to say "so what". If it isn't worthy of your venerable response or concern then why read it or comment at all? The very fact that you would take the time to read "pretty much the entire thing" of a 37 page discussion betrays the expressed "truth" in your indifference. It may be because these cries for attention seem to be 9/10 of every thread nowadays. Although I won't speak for him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChairmanHal Posted August 14, 2009 Report Share Posted August 14, 2009 Bump for great justice I think this sums up much of the NSO commentary the last several pages.... deja doesn't particularly need to write a 5 paragraph theme to demonstrate reading comprehension. The proof is in how this doctrine pans out in practice, not in some theoretical discussion that should have been allowed to die out days ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bumpy Posted August 14, 2009 Report Share Posted August 14, 2009 I think this sums up much of the NSO commentary the last several pages.... deja doesn't particularly need to write a 5 paragraph theme to demonstrate reading comprehension. The proof is in how this doctrine pans out in practice, not in some theoretical discussion that should have been allowed to die out days ago. Sooo, as I read what you've written, deja has no need to comment intelligently to demonstrate reading comprehension; it would seem that you offer proof of deja's reading comprehension and ability to articulate an intelligent comment about the doctrine being discussed in the form of ambiguous and vague prognostications with dire implications of the dreadful results to be expected if the doctrine in question were to be permitted to influence public perception. Clearly, one's claimed ability to read and comprehend is subject to review and re-evaluation. The doctrine is sound and the discussion is anything but theoretical; since the discussion is actual, not theoretical, and since your comments betray the ignorance you so vehemently deny, I am forced to conclude that your balls are bigger than your brains, perhaps this condition is contributing to the intense discomfort inflicted upon this community by your as yet un-ameliorated cranio-rectal inversion; I for one look forward to that satisfying *POP* which is sure to reward any effort to pull your ears past your sphincter and listen, one your ears are open, the *pop* of relief is rarely long in coming. Regards, B Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tygaland Posted August 14, 2009 Report Share Posted August 14, 2009 Only if you view mandatory defense treaties a little differently than I, my alliance, and as of late, at least, most of the alliances here. I'm not aware 90% of announcements are announcements of mandatory defence treaties. A lot of milestones, PIATS, election results etc. are of no consequence to anyone at all but announcing them is part of the community of the Cyberverse. So, rather than post "so what?" most people just skip past the announcement if they are not interested in it. To be honest, this announcement would have faded into obscurity if it weren't for the knee-jerk doomsdayers shrieking about the evil NSO. I'm sure the NSO are thankful for you (and many others) for keeping the announcement active. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pmac627 Posted August 14, 2009 Report Share Posted August 14, 2009 this treaty gives too much power to ivan for a casus belli he just has to pick where Until they attack someone and people decide not to recognize it. It's as useful as that "secret clause" in OBR's big treaty about all signatories can't defend themselves against OBR in a war. It sounds great, but not many will actually let it happen. The only problem with this oAoDP is that nobody else signed it... so it will carry as much weight as them not having it at all and just randomly joining in wars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted August 14, 2009 Report Share Posted August 14, 2009 The only problem with this oAoDP is that nobody else signed it... so it will carry as much weight as them not having it at all and just randomly joining in wars. It's not a treaty, so of course nobody else signed it. However several alliance leaders posted their agreement with it in principle in the thread. You'd know that if you read it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lennox Posted August 14, 2009 Report Share Posted August 14, 2009 (edited) The only problem with this oAoDP is that nobody else signed it... so it will carry as much weight as them not having it at all and just randomly joining in wars. I don't even know where to begin. Go sit down and think about what you've done for 15 minutes. Edited August 14, 2009 by Lennox Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChairmanHal Posted August 14, 2009 Report Share Posted August 14, 2009 Sooo, as I read what you've written, deja has no need to comment intelligently to demonstrate reading comprehension; it would seem that you offer proof of deja's reading comprehension and ability to articulate an intelligent comment about the doctrine being discussed in the form of ambiguous and vague prognostications with dire implications of the dreadful results to be expected if the doctrine in question were to be permitted to influence public perception.Clearly, one's claimed ability to read and comprehend is subject to review and re-evaluation. The doctrine is sound and the discussion is anything but theoretical; since the discussion is actual, not theoretical, and since your comments betray the ignorance you so vehemently deny, I am forced to conclude that your balls are bigger than your brains, perhaps this condition is contributing to the intense discomfort inflicted upon this community by your as yet un-ameliorated cranio-rectal inversion; I for one look forward to that satisfying *POP* which is sure to reward any effort to pull your ears past your sphincter and listen, one your ears are open, the *pop* of relief is rarely long in coming. Regards, B *yawn* That's some mighty fancy words for someone sitting at DEFCON 4. Tell ya what, when you are through playing the psuedo intellectual, why don't you go back to the Cheers! bar. Norm misses you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MiasmaCircle Posted August 14, 2009 Report Share Posted August 14, 2009 *yawn*That's some mighty fancy words for someone sitting at DEFCON 4. Tell ya what, when you are through playing the psuedo intellectual, why don't you go back to the Cheers! bar. Norm misses you. Perhaps you'd best look past the verbiage and into the meaning. He makes a good point, which you seem to be unable or at least unwilling to understand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChairmanHal Posted August 14, 2009 Report Share Posted August 14, 2009 Perhaps you'd best look past the verbiage and into the meaning. He makes a good point, which you seem to be unable or at least unwilling to understand. I understand his point completely. deja read the thread and was left asking, "so what?" That is a perfectly valid response to the announcement of the doctrine and what followed. Is it prize winning analysis? No. But then that isn't a requirement to post. As for the balance of his remarks, prior to resorting to insults I'm sure he thinks are oh so witty (and can't back up), I completely disagree with them. We can talk this doctrine to death and go into page after page of analysis and answers to "what if?" scenarios. It amounts to nothing. How it works in practice will determine if this was nothing more than a publicity stunt, whether or not NSO will use it to bully smaller alliances, bandwagon on wars they have no business in, or will use it for benevolent purposes, such as rescuing an alliance that is being attacked by an aggressive, superior foe for no reason other than grabbing tech and land. OOC: To use an American football analogy: this is why we play the game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fahlenfor Posted August 14, 2009 Report Share Posted August 14, 2009 This is one of the worst thing to ever happen in CyberNations. Nothing comes close. This totally regard treaties as if they never exist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corinan Posted August 14, 2009 Report Share Posted August 14, 2009 This is one of the worst thing to ever happen in CyberNations.Nothing comes close. This totally regard treaties as if they never exist. So you think you might be exaggerating a little? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SleepiB Posted August 14, 2009 Report Share Posted August 14, 2009 fahlenfor, it doesn't have any impact on treaties at all. If they attack someone with an MDP using this doctrine, they can expect to get attacked. If they attack someone they have a treaty with, they can still expect the rest of their treaty partners to drop them. This doctrine changes absolutely nothing with respect to treaties. It's a thinly veiled threat against no one in particular, which isn't even credible until they act on it. Unless NSO just posted this for attention, it would probably have been better to just attach it to their first DoW that uses it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heggo Posted August 14, 2009 Report Share Posted August 14, 2009 This is one of the worst thing to ever happen in CyberNations.Nothing comes close. This totally regard treaties as if they never exist. You're welcome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wing Chun Stunna Posted August 14, 2009 Report Share Posted August 14, 2009 It's good to see that the kool-aid Ivan is serving over in his compound is having such a strong effect on his people. They genuinely seem to think that there is kind of righteousness to this announcement. Congrats, Ivan. It's unfortunate for you though, that the world at large is not as star struck as your loyal following. You're going to have to work just a bit harder if you wish to become the old Ivan once again. For this announcement I rate your: 1) power lust - 7/10 - You really really like attention, don't you? 2) originality - 1/10 - Seriously? A document that says you can attack whoever you see fit when you see necessary? This is soooo 2 years ago. 3) relevance - 2/10 - The only reason you didn't get a one here is because you're Ivan. Congrats on that, I guess. Now I see a 10/30 overall score here. Fear not, though. If this were baseball, you'd be a top slugger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmansfield68 Posted August 14, 2009 Report Share Posted August 14, 2009 This is one of the worst thing to ever happen in CyberNations.Nothing comes close. You must be new....not that there's anything wrong with that.... This totally regard treaties as if they never exist. Treaties are trampled upon daily in this game. Some alliances stand on pillars of salt and proclaim their steadfast adherence to treaties, while abandoning them when it gets too hot, and/or they stand to lose infrastructure for their flimsy convictions. Convictions they don't have the sack to defend. This is Cybernations. The same people lambasting this announcement are the same hypocrites who would stand (2 years ago) in a 40-page thread and tell Ivan (my 1st Emperor) how insignificant he was while staring in the face of the fact that his OP ignited a 40 page discussion. Delusion is the name of the game, welcome to the machine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corinan Posted August 14, 2009 Report Share Posted August 14, 2009 It's unfortunate for you though, that the world at large is not as star struck as your loyal following. Really? The quote in my signature is from this thread. There's been several similar to it as well. Don't let our scary theme fool you, as I guess it may have when you joined us soon after we formed. We're a force of good, positive change in the Cyberverse. 3) relevance - 2/10 - The only reason you didn't get a one here is because you're Ivan. Congrats on that, I guess. So irrelevant that we're damn near 40 pages into this conversation? Indeed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sal Paradise Posted August 14, 2009 Report Share Posted August 14, 2009 Now's your chance NSO. http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=66116 Innovate! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corinan Posted August 14, 2009 Report Share Posted August 14, 2009 Now's your chance NSO.http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=66116 Innovate! Right, because this doctrine states that we'll insert ourselves in every single war from here on out. Do try harder next time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sal Paradise Posted August 14, 2009 Report Share Posted August 14, 2009 Right, because this doctrine states that we'll insert ourselves in every single war from here on out. Of course it doesn't. Didn't you read the damn thing? Do try harder next time. Try harder to what? Looks like the perfect opportunity to assert your sovereignty, show all the people that think this is all a bunch of hot air. No, not this time? Wars don't come too often you know. Not in this glorious age of Pax Karmanica. 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.