SirWilliam Posted November 16, 2009 Report Share Posted November 16, 2009 It's cute, but sad at the same time, that all that some have on some alliances are past events, and tired idioms at that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Style #386 Posted November 16, 2009 Report Share Posted November 16, 2009 If you can verbally attack IAA based on a single member's opinions, I am certainly entitled to verbally attack ODN for your entire alliance's history.You made a baseless comparison between MK and IAA, to be precise, assuming that a single member's distaste for Athens constituted Imperial policy and therefore making an assumption about IAA as a whole (which, while we're speaking about logical fallacies, is a classic hasty generalization). I was responding with a not-so-baseless comparison between ODN and IAA, backed up by the fact that your alliance has chosen the easy way out (IE the winning side) of wars multiple times in its past. Are the two things really that different except for the fact that your attack has no merit and mine does based on the historical actions of our respective alliances? I think not. Please, feel free to get back to me when you are more interested in discussing our alliances' treatment of our allies rather than explaining to me how I am committing a logical fallacy. I'll concede that my judgment was overly-hasty. I already said that I was glad to be proven wrong. My affiliation, however, continues to be irrelevant. Cooler heads are prevailing on IRC, so I'll end this on that note. Well, yea, because someone from ODN making claims about someone not sticking to their treaties is hilarious! At least Chimaera's response had substance. Where did I mention not sticking to your treaties? When you're not busy writing ad hominem attacks do you put words in my mouth as well? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triyun Posted November 16, 2009 Report Share Posted November 16, 2009 It's cute, but sad at the same time, that all that some have on some alliances are past events, and tired idioms at that. I totally agree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Syndic Posted November 16, 2009 Report Share Posted November 16, 2009 I think all the ranting has left everyone slightly confused. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Wilson Posted November 16, 2009 Report Share Posted November 16, 2009 At least Chimaera's response had substance. Where did I mention not sticking to your treaties? When you're not busy writing ad hominem attacks do you put words in my mouth as well? No, I don't I'm merely replying to what I perceived as you saying, we don't honor our treaties or allies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mathias Posted November 16, 2009 Report Share Posted November 16, 2009 Regardless of the past actions of ODN and IAA, we do not silence our members. If we didn't support Athens, you would have heard through official channels. Athens is taking steps in the right direction, so instead of playing a game of "who's the better ally" why don't you all just sit down, shut up, and let this blow over like it should have. IAA has supported Athens since the day we reformed, and the we've received the same dedication. I have no doubt that ODN's relationship with them will be fruitful as well, so instead of dwelling on the past (especially the last few days) why don't we all move forward? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Style #386 Posted November 16, 2009 Report Share Posted November 16, 2009 Regardless of the past actions of ODN and IAA, we do not silence our members. If we didn't support Athens, you would have heard through official channels. Athens is taking steps in the right direction, so instead of playing a game of "who's the better ally" why don't you all just sit down, shut up, and let this blow over like it should have. IAA has supported Athens since the day we reformed, and the we've received the same dedication. I have no doubt that ODN's relationship with them will be fruitful as well, so instead of dwelling on the past (especially the last few days) why don't we all move forward? Stop talking sense, Mathias. But yeah, have fun and all. We seem to share a number of allies these days. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Fingolfin Posted November 16, 2009 Report Share Posted November 16, 2009 (edited) To much bickering. Can't we all just love each other? Although I am loving Chimaera here Edit: Matthias said it best. Oh my, IAAwesome time? Edited November 16, 2009 by Lord Fingolfin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted November 16, 2009 Report Share Posted November 16, 2009 It's cute, but sad at the same time, that all that some have on some alliances are past events, and tired idioms at that. heh. seems that Polaris, Pacifica, TPF, IRON, GGA, Valhalla, and many others have issues with that since all of them were condemned for past events all by MK at that. And lo'! A blistering series of ad hominem attacks that completely fail to address the matter at hand! Get back to me when you brush up on your reading and comprehension skills.That said, good on you for not canceling on Athens. so because Chim said this: I guess that's just the difference between IAA and ODN. We back our allies up, you publicly state that you "cannot be bound to the actions" of your allies. Classy. it is an ad hominem? yet you state this: I guess that's the difference between MK and IAA. They back their allies up, you publicly moan about your "unsafe and unstable" position, and then wear sarcastic propaganda that belittles your allies. Classy. so i take it you are stating you yourself committed an ad hominem then? awesome. just wanted to make sure we clear that up. and with that i am done here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirWilliam Posted November 16, 2009 Report Share Posted November 16, 2009 (edited) heh. seems that Polaris, Pacifica, TPF, IRON, GGA, Valhalla, and many others have issues with that since all of them were condemned for past events all by MK at that. And that has bearing on this specific situation how? If your point is that we're all hypocritical, regardless of whether you're right or not, that doesn't change the fact that ODN still catches flak for the past. edit: Emphasis added. And post otherwise clarified. Edited November 16, 2009 by SirWilliam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locke Posted November 16, 2009 Report Share Posted November 16, 2009 If you can verbally attack IAA based on a single member's opinions, I am certainly entitled to verbally attack ODN for your entire alliance's history.You made a baseless comparison between MK and IAA, to be precise, assuming that a single member's distaste for Athens constituted Imperial policy and therefore making an assumption about IAA as a whole (which, while we're speaking about logical fallacies, is a classic hasty generalization). I was responding with a not-so-baseless comparison between ODN and IAA, backed up by the fact that your alliance has chosen the easy way out (IE the winning side) of wars multiple times in its past. Are the two things really that different except for the fact that your attack has no merit and mine does based on the historical actions of our respective alliances? I think not. Please, feel free to get back to me when you are more interested in discussing our alliances' treatment of our allies rather than explaining to me how I am committing a logical fallacy. Oh Chim, stop making me man-crush on you so hard again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skippy Posted November 16, 2009 Report Share Posted November 16, 2009 Ah the good old days where Jgoods constantly reminded me how Athens members had a complete freedom of speech. I do like this policy, you don't need trouble started when it isn't needed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jgoods45 Posted November 16, 2009 Report Share Posted November 16, 2009 Ah the good old days where Jgoods constantly reminded me how Athens members had a complete freedom of speech.I do like this policy, you don't need trouble started when it isn't needed. Our members will still enjoy an enormous amount of free speech. You just won't see any overt posturing of any kind unless its justified. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cataduanes Posted November 16, 2009 Report Share Posted November 16, 2009 If you can verbally attack IAA based on a single member's opinions, I am certainly entitled to verbally attack ODN for your entire alliance's history. Wow yet when one of your members attacks ODN (which has been the case from a variety of IAA members since your reformation) we are meant to sit in the corner and cry quietly??. Yes ODN has made questionable choices at times in history and we have spent many months seeking to make amends and to never again commit the same mistakes, but we are not guilty of collective cowardice at every point of our history, maybe you and your comrades could try recognizing that fact once in a while. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deadshot Posted November 16, 2009 Report Share Posted November 16, 2009 Is this a PR move? Certainly. It also can lay a little truth into Londo's apology because this is actually a change for the better. Nipping what could become a huge issue in the bud. I certainly don't see this as restricting freedom of speech in the slightest. It is possible to debate and have discourse without recoiling into the same old ad hominem and "do something about it" lines. All this does is remove the retarded excuses for e-peen waving that some pass off as a valid argument. Good on Athens and Londo, it is a policy I can agree with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archon Posted November 16, 2009 Report Share Posted November 16, 2009 I totally agree. Quite so. And so long as alliances make the effort to move past those negative stigmas, they no longer deserve to face them at every turn. And no, for the love of all that is holy and not, I'm not taking a shot at the NPO by claiming they're not. I actually wrote that with Legion in mind Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penkala Posted November 17, 2009 Report Share Posted November 17, 2009 I await your OWF ban.... Good thing that won't be happening. Now are you done making snarky comments, or.....? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caesar833 Posted November 17, 2009 Report Share Posted November 17, 2009 Our members will still enjoy an enormous amount of free speech. You just won't see any overt posturing of any kind unless its justified. Its not free speech unless you can say what you want. Seeing as you just outlawed a phrase or more of a tone, its not free speech Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rsoxbronco1 Posted November 17, 2009 Report Share Posted November 17, 2009 Its not free speech unless you can say what you want. Seeing as you just outlawed a phrase or more of a tone, its not free speech Yes it is, it just means that instead of saying "I hate your guts and hope you die in a fire" you should say, "I passionately disagree with everything you stand for and would be less than sorry to see something unfortunate befall your nation." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mathias Posted November 17, 2009 Report Share Posted November 17, 2009 Wow yet when one of your members attacks ODN (which has been the case from a variety of IAA members since your reformation) we are meant to sit in the corner and cry quietly??. Yes ODN has made questionable choices at times in history and we have spent many months seeking to make amends and to never again commit the same mistakes, but we are not guilty of collective cowardice at every point of our history, maybe you and your comrades could try recognizing that fact once in a while. The common belief is that one member does not speak for an entire alliance, especially one that is not gov. Regardless of any IAA member's past comments on ODN's reliability, it's still not a fitting to assess IAA's foreign policy based on one non-government member. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted November 18, 2009 Report Share Posted November 18, 2009 The common belief is that one member does not speak for an entire alliance, especially one that is not gov. Regardless of any IAA member's past comments on ODN's reliability, it's still not a fitting to assess IAA's foreign policy based on one non-government member. most people who know me, tend to know that i speak only for myself. yes, sometimes people in my alliance (both present as well as past alliances) agree with me, i have never sought to speak for any one but myself. this also means that i do not take the words of a non-gov as being anything but his/her own, until there seems to be support on a major scale (for example, had a single member of MK been wearing the "i voted to roll IAA" sig, i would not have stated that is how MK felt, but i saw quite a few active MKers wearing it and thus took that to mean that there was a good amount of support for that in MK, does not help when allies of CnG wear that sig as well). but c'est la vie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OmahaHusker Posted November 18, 2009 Report Share Posted November 18, 2009 Bring it.Edit: I COULDN'T RESIST! Oh it's already been brought. B) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
logan1 Posted November 18, 2009 Report Share Posted November 18, 2009 great policy from our brothers and sisters in Athens! B) 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.