An Echelon Announcement

[Delta1212]

[quote name='Augusta Antonia' date='31 January 2010 - 05:44 PM' timestamp='1264977870' post='2148499']
Again refer to my previous post "things do not ALWAYS follow traditional and predictable courses, but usually they do..." Also, if no one left cares then why bother posting on this at all? Just let it go...
[/quote]
A combination of amusement and annoyance at the people challenging us to do something about the fact that Echelon is choosing to ignore the term.

[Aurion]

[quote name='Augusta Antonia' date='31 January 2010 - 05:44 PM' timestamp='1264977870' post='2148499']
Again refer to my previous post "things do not ALWAYS follow traditional and predictable courses, but usually they do..." Also, if no one left cares then why bother posting on this at all? Just let it go...
[/quote]

The way in which this was done kind of grates for me.

I mean, if they're gonna invest in a Take That moment, they could at least have done it [i]well[/i].

For whatever reason, people have a bad habit of using poor aim when trying to use those on us.

Edited January 31, 2010 by Aurion

[Augusta Antonia]

[quote name='Matthew Conrad' date='31 January 2010 - 05:45 PM' timestamp='1264977942' post='2148502']
What is there really to elaborate on. He was in a position of know and says the terms would have been dropped if Echelon tried to work with them. Unless you've got any groundbreaking evidence to the contrary, there's nothing else to say but to say you're incorrect.
[/quote]

Ah I see! So just because someone says something that makes it true (which it may or may not be) and there is no further discussion allowed? I'll have to remember that for future reference. Thanks!

[Caffine]

[quote name='NoFish' date='31 January 2010 - 05:46 PM' timestamp='1264977983' post='2148504']
Your major misconception is that you expect it to be dropped without Echelon making any concessions in return. The agreement was reached which all parties found mutually acceptable - if the agreement is shifted in Echelon's favor, obviously the people on the other side would be expecting something in exchange. Echelon never wanted to "negotiate" the term, they were just going to keep it as long wasn't inconvenient, then cast it aside along with their signed word. As far as I am aware (and my memory isn't very sharp) all Echelon or Caffine1 did is "Hey, do you wanna drop that term?" "No, not really." "Oh, alright, have a nice day." There wasn't any "What if we paid a token amount of tech or cash?" or "What if we apologized for most of those things you hate us for, like supporting that coup of MA?"

Edit: Also, yes, what Delta said. At this point there's no one left who cares.
[/quote]

So in contradiction to what everybody else has said thus far, you're saying that people do care about the term, giving it value, requiring negotiation?

[Delta1212]

[quote name='Caffine1' date='31 January 2010 - 05:49 PM' timestamp='1264978194' post='2148511']
So in contradiction to what everybody else has said thus far, you're saying that people do care about the term, giving it value, requiring negotiation?
[/quote]
He's talking about the original terms. Obviously [i]someone[/i] cared at that point or they wouldn't be there, hence requiring negotiation to have them out of the terms in the first place. Now, with no one left that cares, they would have just been waived.

Edit: And including your request to mamaduck for which the same point applies as obviously someone still cared at that point.

Edited January 31, 2010 by Delta1212

[Fantastico]

[quote name='Delta1212' date='31 January 2010 - 04:28 PM' timestamp='1264976903' post='2148463']
No one cared because Echelon didn't ask us. If they wanted it dropped, we could have managed it fairly easily.
[/quote]

That seems to be the question of another debate here, one that we do not even need to engage.

What caught my interest here is how you indicated that there was a shared feeling that the term should not have been there, yet no one chose to do anything about it.

That is similar (but, in fairness, no where near as severe) as the type of attitude Echelon and Caffine used to show around here (and probably will show again soon).

It stinks no matter who has it.

[Caffine]

[quote name='Delta1212' date='31 January 2010 - 05:51 PM' timestamp='1264978308' post='2148515']
He's talking about the original terms. Obviously [i]someone[/i] cared at that point or they wouldn't be there, hence requiring negotiation to have them out of the terms in the first place. Now, with no one left that cares, they would have just been waived.

Edit: And including your request to mamaduck for which the same point applies as obviously someone still cared at that point.
[/quote]
You are flat out wrong. I suggest you reread it, he was referring directly to the discussion long after the terms.

Edited January 31, 2010 by Caffine1

[Delta1212]

[quote name='Fantastico' date='31 January 2010 - 05:51 PM' timestamp='1264978313' post='2148516']
That seems to be the question of another debate here, one that we do not even need to engage.

What caught my interest here is how you indicated that there was a shared feeling that the term should not have been there, yet no one chose to do anything about it.

That is similar (but, in fairness, no where near as severe) as the type of attitude Echelon and Caffine used to show around here (and probably will show again soon).

It stinks no matter who has it.
[/quote]
It's not really the same attitude unless you are making "non-benevolent" a single category.

[Delta1212]

[quote name='Caffine1' date='31 January 2010 - 05:57 PM' timestamp='1264978657' post='2148523']
I suggest you reread it, he was referring directly to the discussion long after the terms.
[/quote]
Which is where my edit came from. Obviously if mamaduck still cared enough to say no, then getting it removed would have required some kind of negotiating. That was the point. Mamaduck is no longer here. That was mine.

Edit: I'm not sure why you needed to edit in emphasis that I was wrong. You communicated your point fairly well anyway.

Edited January 31, 2010 by Delta1212

[WarriorConcept]

Why didn't echelon approach the people they surrendered to regarding having the term removed?

[Matthew Conrad]

[quote name='Augusta Antonia' date='31 January 2010 - 05:49 PM' timestamp='1264978149' post='2148509']
Ah I see! So just because someone says something that makes it true (which it may or may not be) and there is no further discussion allowed? I'll have to remember that for future reference. Thanks!
[/quote]

Why, I see you've been practicing the art of taking words out of other peoples' mouths. Hey, why don't you point me to where I said anything you just accused me of saying. No really, point me to it.

[NoFish]

[quote name='Caffine1' date='31 January 2010 - 05:57 PM' timestamp='1264978657' post='2148523']
You are flat out wrong. I suggest you reread it, he was referring directly to the discussion long after the terms.
[/quote]
[quote name='Delta1212' date='31 January 2010 - 05:59 PM' timestamp='1264978773' post='2148530']
Which is where my edit came from. Obviously if mamaduck still cared enough to say no, then getting it removed would have required some kind of negotiating. That was the point. Mamaduck is no longer here. That was mine.

Edit: I'm not sure why you needed to edit in emphasis that I was wrong. You communicated your point fairly well anyway.
[/quote]

Just to clarify, yes, Delta's interpretation is correct. My previous post was a bit poorly worded and I'm sorry about that, though I get a feeling you might have been misunderstanding me on purpose, Caffine.

[Augusta Antonia]

[quote name='Matthew Conrad' date='31 January 2010 - 06:04 PM' timestamp='1264979044' post='2148538']
Why, I see you've been practicing the art of taking words out of other peoples' mouths. Hey, why don't you point me to where I said anything you just accused me of saying. No really, point me to it.
[/quote]

Well Matthew..."He was in a position of know and [u][b]says[/b][/u] the terms would have been dropped if Echelon tried to work with them." No, you did not SAY exactly that just because someone says it is true that it must be, but you sure did imply it. *shrug*

[Matthew Conrad]

[quote name='Augusta Antonia' date='31 January 2010 - 06:10 PM' timestamp='1264979416' post='2148550']
Well Matthew..."He was in a position of know and [u][b]says[/b][/u] the terms would have been dropped if Echelon tried to work with them." No, you did not SAY exactly that just because someone says it is true that it must be, but you sure did imply it. *shrug*
[/quote]

Exactly, you know what they say about making assumptions

You basically asked him to elaborate when he already elaborated. Actually, people have been trying to elaborate through this whole thread. There was really no point in that post.

[Delta1212]

[quote name='Augusta Antonia' date='31 January 2010 - 06:10 PM' timestamp='1264979416' post='2148550']
Well Matthew..."He was in a position of know and [u][b]says[/b][/u] the terms would have been dropped if Echelon tried to work with them." No, you did not SAY exactly that just because someone says it is true that it must be, but you sure did imply it. *shrug*
[/quote]
I should point out that I stated earlier in the thread that had Echelon come to us, requested the term be dropped, and then come and posted this, then the tone of the topic would be at least somewhat justified instead of farcical.

Edit: And I realize that doesn't really address the post I quoted, but it harkens back to earlier in this line of conversation.

Edited January 31, 2010 by Delta1212

[Augusta Antonia]

[quote name='Matthew Conrad' date='31 January 2010 - 06:12 PM' timestamp='1264979520' post='2148553']
Exactly, you know what they say about making assumptions

You basically asked him to elaborate when he already elaborated. Actually, people have been trying to elaborate through this whole thread. There was really no point in that post.
[/quote]

LOL no assumption...your implication was rather clear.

:EDIT: Typing fail

Edited January 31, 2010 by Augusta Antonia

[Augusta Antonia]

[quote name='Delta1212' date='31 January 2010 - 06:12 PM' timestamp='1264979532' post='2148554']
I should point out that I stated earlier in the thread that had Echelon come to us, requested the term be dropped, and then come and posted this, then the tone of the topic would be at least somewhat justified instead of farcical.

Edit: And I realize that doesn't really address the post I quoted, but it harkens back to earlier in this line of conversation.
[/quote]

Delta ah well see, after the first 7 pages earlier I just got tired of seeing the same thing posted over and over so alas I probably missed your original explanation (laziness ftw? lol) Thanks for the clarification

[zzzptm]

So... what's the bottom line?

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='NoFish' date='31 January 2010 - 05:12 PM' timestamp='1264975940' post='2148439']
It is perfectly possible for Echelon to keep Caffine1 out of government until the end of time. But, let's go with that for a moment. By your logic if, instead of having it be an indefinite term, we had said that Caffine1 couldn't rejoin Echelon government for the next ten years you'd be okay with it? Because I'm pretty sure if Echelon had pushed for that distinction, during the surrender negotiations or after, we would have granted it.
[/quote]
I think 10 years under terms sounds excessive, they went in to honor a treaty. Echelon fought for a long time, should of got light terms or white peace. It was excessive terms in past wars that people had a problem with NPO for, yet some some of the harshest terms were given during the Karma War.

[x Tela x]

[quote name='Schattenmann' date='31 January 2010 - 05:11 PM' timestamp='1264975880' post='2148436']
They are 100% completable. It's harder to put Caffine in gov than to not put him in gov. All they have to do is never elect or appoint him.

Caffine hasn't even been in Echelon all that long. His AA seniority is 83 days, that's less than 3 months. The minute he rejoined Echelon, he started trying to join gov again--as he has admitted by saying he asked for the term to be rescinded "several months ago". Echelon has not even made an attempt to follow the terms. And that's why the term is necessary. Boom, Caffine waits til the coast is clear, then biggity-bam he's back in Echelon and he's back in gov being Caffine again.
[/quote]

Caffine won't be heading into office anytime soon. The highest post he's likely to attain (and all that he WANTS to attain) in the foreseeable future is that of a deputy, which is not considered government in Echelon.


Also, Delta, I really don't think RIA was a consideration. We pretty much know that RIA aren't a bunch of douchebags. It's your allies that would have blocked it.

[Tautology]

I can see why Echelon government might be persuaded to do this for Caffine1 (especially at this time), but I have no idea why Caffine1 would let/encourage/cajole them do it. What did you expect to gain from it that could be worth this silly gesture?

[Caffine]

[quote name='NoFish' date='31 January 2010 - 06:07 PM' timestamp='1264979256' post='2148544']
Just to clarify, yes, Delta's interpretation is correct. My previous post was a bit poorly worded and I'm sorry about that, though I get a feeling you might have been misunderstanding me on purpose, Caffine.
[/quote]

You can backpeddle all you want, but what you said is quite clear.

[quote]Your major misconception is that you expect it to be dropped without Echelon making any concessions in return. The agreement was reached which all parties found mutually acceptable - if the agreement is shifted in Echelon's favor, obviously the people on the other side would be expecting something in exchange. [b]Echelon never wanted to "negotiate" the term, they were just going to keep it as long wasn't inconvenient, then cast it aside [u]along with their signed word[/u].[/b] As far as I am aware (and my memory isn't very sharp) all Echelon or Caffine1 did is "Hey, do you wanna drop that term?" "No, not really." "Oh, alright, have a nice day." There wasn't any "What if we paid a token amount of tech or cash?" or "What if we apologized for most of those things you hate us for, like supporting that coup of MA?"

Edit: Also, yes, what Delta said. At this point there's no one left who cares.[/quote]
So what was that signed word? How can you toss off something that hasn't been given yet? You were talking about after the agreement.

I'd just like to say that I'm glad to see that GOD's true colors are showing. Supporting the continued enforcement of draconian terms.

Edited January 31, 2010 by Caffine1

[Augusta Antonia]

[quote name='x Tela x' date='31 January 2010 - 06:16 PM' timestamp='1264979796' post='2148565']Also, Delta, I really don't think RIA was a consideration. We pretty much know that RIA aren't a bunch of douchebags. It's your allies that would have blocked it.
[/quote]

Agreed. RIA are pretty good folks. RDD's experience fighting against them in the Karma war was about as pleasurable as fighting in a war can be.

[astronaut jones]

[quote name='Caffine1' date='31 January 2010 - 11:18 PM' timestamp='1264979901' post='2148571']
You can backpeddle all you want, but what you said is quite clear.


So what was that signed word? How can you toss off something that hasn't been given yet? You were talking about after the agreement.

I'd just like to say that I'm glad to see that GOD's true colors are showing. Supporting the continued enforcement of draconian terms.
[/quote]

Terms you agreed to and had no problem to up until now. You should tell the truth, it's good for you.

[Aurion]

[quote name='Caffine1' date='31 January 2010 - 06:18 PM' timestamp='1264979901' post='2148571']
You can backpeddle all you want, but what you said is quite clear.


So what was that signed word? How can you toss off something that hasn't been given yet?
[/quote]

Because Echelon's signed word totally wasn't on the surrender document amirite.

[quote]
You were talking about after the agreement.
[/quote]

[quote]
I'd just like to say that I'm glad to see that GOD's true colors are showing. Supporting the continued enforcement of draconian terms.
[/quote]

You are either incapable of basic reading comprehension, or are just playing for the crowd.

I'm desperately hoping it is the latter.