Schattenmann Posted February 2, 2010 Author Report Share Posted February 2, 2010 [quote name='Marty McFly' date='02 February 2010 - 02:40 AM' timestamp='1265096447' post='2152775'] Situations change, you should be very well aware of that. [/quote] Surely, surely, but your treaty did not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted February 2, 2010 Report Share Posted February 2, 2010 (edited) Nothing has changed. Respect remains from both sides, maybe lessened but the relationship can grow back. Until the day this treaty is canceled, I will consider this relationship to be strong. D: Edited February 2, 2010 by Penlugue Solaris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schattenmann Posted February 2, 2010 Author Report Share Posted February 2, 2010 (edited) [quote name='Penlugue Solaris' date='02 February 2010 - 02:54 AM' timestamp='1265097287' post='2152804'] Nothing has changed. [/quote] Well said! Same old Polaris! Oh-ho, Quickdraw! I have already quoted you Edited February 2, 2010 by Schattenmann Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted February 2, 2010 Report Share Posted February 2, 2010 [quote name='Schattenmann' date='02 February 2010 - 02:55 AM' timestamp='1265097352' post='2152806'] Well said! Same old Polaris! Oh-ho, Quickdraw! I have already quoted you [/quote] You did destroy me. now I have to elaborate you :scum: While I believe relations have been hurt recently, I don't think the opinions reflected in that thread have much changed. There is lost love, but nothing that cannot be repaired if both sides are willing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Letum Posted February 2, 2010 Report Share Posted February 2, 2010 (edited) The "expose" stile of writing only works if you have something to expose. I'm sure that, given how persistently you've been dogging polaris over the past few days that this seems like a natural evolution of everything you've said before, but you're not really doing anything more than pointing out that they have a treaty, and were happy about signing it. That's hardly something new, given that there's an entire thread of people complaining about it in Polar's announcement already. You should have taken your time and dug further back, and taken the time to add some commentary. No offence, but from a third party perspective this just looks like an anger-driven reaction of the first thing that came to your mind. There doesn't really seem to be a point to pass on other than "I don't like these guys". I mean, seriously - they signed a treaty and are doing some things that run contrary to their partner's interests? It's far from something unprecedented for alliances on planet bob. If you want people to believe the connection you are trying to draw, you need to exercise some persuasion, not point out a state of affairs. Edited February 2, 2010 by Letum Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prime minister Johns Posted February 2, 2010 Report Share Posted February 2, 2010 All I see is a bunch of quotes in the OP taken out of context. You really need to come up with something better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heft Posted February 2, 2010 Report Share Posted February 2, 2010 Apparently relationships change? You aren't even trying if this is the best you've got. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Godwin Posted February 2, 2010 Report Share Posted February 2, 2010 You could apply this to anybody on this forum, not just NpO. EVERYONE lies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HellAngel Posted February 2, 2010 Report Share Posted February 2, 2010 What you've said can be pointed out for any alliance that ever got a treaty conflicting... nothing really groundbreaking Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Bad Posted February 2, 2010 Report Share Posted February 2, 2010 One would think that with that title you might have at least revealed, idk, a lie? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James I Posted February 2, 2010 Report Share Posted February 2, 2010 This is a pretty terrible piece. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ch33kY Posted February 2, 2010 Report Share Posted February 2, 2010 Several quotes taken out of context proves nothing. And don't quote me on that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lebubu Posted February 2, 2010 Report Share Posted February 2, 2010 [quote name='Schattenmann' date='02 February 2010 - 07:56 AM' timestamp='1265093768' post='2152620'] [b]Appendix A: How to spot a clairvoyant Mushroom:[/b] [/quote] Funny, but it had nothing to do with Polar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tobistus Posted February 2, 2010 Report Share Posted February 2, 2010 This seems like an attempt to start trolling and finger pointing from both sides of this war. However, I don't see a good reason for this. This war has been quite civil considering the events of what happened. Sure, anger had happened among several members in IRON who thought we were betrayed, however, cooler heads prevailed and we were able to sort things out among us. I'm also sure that C&G was confused and angry all the same that we had preemptively struck at them. Regardless of the situations, both sides have been civil for the most part and finger pointing is at a bare minimum. In other words: Just let the grown ups have their fun, and mind your own business unless you wanna get involved personally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted February 2, 2010 Report Share Posted February 2, 2010 So wait, because Polar have started a war against raiders who were never allied to MK, and because they have re-entered the war to help those who joined their side and got left out to dry by declaring war on an alliance that is not allied to MK, they were somehow lying when they said they were happy to sign an MDP with MK? I'm sorry, I just don't see how that's logical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James I Posted February 2, 2010 Report Share Posted February 2, 2010 [quote name='Tobistus' date='02 February 2010 - 01:20 PM' timestamp='1265116809' post='2153049'] This seems like an attempt to start trolling and finger pointing from both sides of this war. However, I don't see a good reason for this. This war has been quite civil considering the events of what happened. Sure, anger had happened among several members in IRON who thought we were betrayed, however, cooler heads prevailed and we were able to sort things out among us. I'm also sure that C&G was confused and angry all the same that we had preemptively struck at them. [b]Regardless of the situations, both sides have been civil for the most part and finger pointing is at a bare minimum.[/b] In other words: Just let the grown ups have their fun, and mind your own business unless you wanna get involved personally. [/quote] Well, I suppose it has been better than it was a month ago... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted February 2, 2010 Report Share Posted February 2, 2010 [quote name='Bob Janova' date='02 February 2010 - 08:22 AM' timestamp='1265116940' post='2153052'] So wait, because Polar have started a war against raiders who were never allied to MK, and because they have re-entered the war to help those who joined their side and got left out to dry by declaring war on an alliance that is not allied to MK, they were somehow lying when they said they were happy to sign an MDP with MK? I'm sorry, I just don't see how that's logical. [/quote] I'm wondering when they'll uphold their MDP and defend MK personally. If they don't then that treaty was a lie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bzelger Posted February 2, 2010 Report Share Posted February 2, 2010 Only if military aid was requested. It's possible that it was, but the only article that has been broken for certain to the best of my knowledge is Article II. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoskia Posted February 2, 2010 Report Share Posted February 2, 2010 [quote name='Penlugue Solaris' date='02 February 2010 - 04:54 AM' timestamp='1265097287' post='2152804'] Nothing has changed. Respect remains from both sides, maybe lessened but the relationship can grow back. Until the day this treaty is canceled, I will consider this relationship to be strong. D: [/quote] The only thing I can spot here is a terribly bad journalist: Schattenmann I agree that things can change though... he used to be clever, funny and even interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted February 2, 2010 Report Share Posted February 2, 2010 [quote name='bzelger' date='02 February 2010 - 11:03 AM' timestamp='1265126603' post='2153238'] Only if military aid was requested. It's possible that it was, but the only article that has been broken for certain to the best of my knowledge is Article II. [/quote] Good point, I'm not sure if MK has asked for help. I hope they do, just to see if Grub is willing to uphold that treaty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bkphysics Posted February 2, 2010 Report Share Posted February 2, 2010 ITT: Schattenman falling on his face I'm still happy to have a treaty with MK, but after the barrage of negative comments from the original DoW and in various embassies etc, my smile became more of a thin upturn of the corners of my lips. Thankfully I am not Gov so my distaste for what was said will bear no factor on the future relations between our alliances. *Point Bob J seems to be the only one who truly understands our latest move and it is absolute blissful ignorance that keeps others from realizing that is what's going on with our reentry to the battlefield. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrcalkin Posted February 2, 2010 Report Share Posted February 2, 2010 [quote name='zoskia' date='02 February 2010 - 10:14 AM' timestamp='1265127259' post='2153257'] The only thing I can spot here is a terribly bad journalist: Schattenmann I agree that things can change though... he used to be clever, funny and even interesting. [/quote] Until he said something you didn't agree with Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alfred von Tirpitz Posted February 2, 2010 Report Share Posted February 2, 2010 Dear OP. People are pissed off enough as it is, please don't rub it in for those that already are being forced to reassess the lay of the land, much against their wishes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Izuzu Posted February 2, 2010 Report Share Posted February 2, 2010 This is simply the latest of a recent series of failed threads authored by Schattenman in which he is attempts to restore his relevance in a post-Hegemony world. I, for one, feel rather sorry for him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustinCox Posted February 2, 2010 Report Share Posted February 2, 2010 Hey, $%&@ you. 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.