Why the war is worth fighting

[Stetson76]

[quote name='Caliph' date='09 February 2010 - 12:58 AM' timestamp='1265698681' post='2170204']
It is essentially letting anyone walk up to your randomly, beat you for a while, then to show you pose no threat let them get away with it with no reprocussions.
[/quote]

[quote name='Caliph' date='09 February 2010 - 02:10 AM' timestamp='1265703033' post='2170286']
Edit: It seems to be you bringing up the subject of tech raiding, which we both know is a "hot topic" here, one that causes heated responses on both sides of such a debate. I don't tech raid, nor have I tech raided in over a year. Look up my nation, view my wars, and you will find only alliance wars, and no tech raiding of unaligned nations.
[/quote]

I agree, I did somewhat derail the conversation onto tech raiding, but given that I consider this all one war (and yes I know we'll disagree on that) the first quote sounded an awful lot like "Tech Raid PM for Peace" coming from a member of an alliance who (again in my considered opinion) got this whole shindig kicked off by raiding an alliance. I'm done with my little morsel of irony now.

I appreciate that you no longer tech raid, like I said, you seem to be much to reasonable to be associated with \m/, but be that as it may, your leadership has declared your alliance as the poster child for tech raiding, so would assume by your continued membership that you agree with it despite your personal inclination.

I'm done with my little morsel of irony now.

[quote name='Caesius' date='09 February 2010 - 02:14 AM' timestamp='1265703257' post='2170289']
IRON was trying to isolate us as well; this was the "grabass on Orange politics" that led to GGA canceling on us and aligning itself with IRON. IRON was not a victim of ODN's foreign policy any more than ODN was a victim of IRON's foreign policy. There are however two facts that make IRON more culpable for their current situation:

1. ODN was open to the possibility of re-establishing embassies. IRON was not.
2. IRON struck first. ODN did not.


If anyone needs to prove they are not a threat, it is IRON and TOP. Demanding white peace only shows that they wish to take advantage of the post-Karma climate to preclude us from imposing terms they deserve and ensuring our own continued security. If they want security as well, then they will have to stop plotting to take us out and at least [i]try[/i] to have amicable relations.

And somehow I doubt that if TOP and IRON were in our shoes, they would white peace. Anyone who thinks otherwise is hopelessly naive.
[/quote]

To the matter at hand. Whether or not IRON was right, wrong or indifferent to ODN prior to this war is immaterial. They believed that C&G, who you just joined, was out to get them, and you just confirmed that they were right. Now, no matter how stupid their actions were in declaring on C&G without treaty obligations, and no matter the reasons they knew you to be aggressive towards them (hell they may consider their fault as well) the fact is that you were by your own words a threat to them. Their reasoning was perfectly sound, just their decision making process was flawed.

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='Caliph' date='09 February 2010 - 03:26 AM' timestamp='1265703998' post='2170302']
Well I don't disagree with you or NSO on everything, although I do agree with some of your policies, like the war with folks for one round of wars then peace out. i had a blast during the NSO/RAD war

And as for white peace, the only TOP figure I've talked to about that was a TOP applicant, who was fairly adamant that TOP was not offering White Peace to C&G. If that is the case, than the entire line of thinking that "just have C&G declare white peace" seems fairly moot, does it not?

If TOP and friends have indeed offered white peace to end this conflict, that would be news to me, and, pending proof of such a claim, I would have to examine my views on the subject before commenting further.
[/quote]
A TOP applicant wouldn't know and is still in the interviewing process, although TOP has stated they are fighting for white peace. Glad you enjoyed the NSO/RAD war, although I was FCC at the time so I wasn't involved.

[Caesius]

[quote name='Aeternos Astramora' date='09 February 2010 - 03:30 AM' timestamp='1265704251' post='2170306']
I think it's funny how people are still trying to cling to the illusion that CnG wasn't going to be attack TOP/IRON in the war (and just for who they were a year ago). This is the third time in two months that they were ready for any chance to jump them.
[/quote]

C&G was trying to allow the NpO-\m/ conflict to resolve itself, which it did. C&G was not thrilled with the prospect of joining in on such a stupid war, since both sides were in the wrong.

Again, it was TOP and IRON who had no intention of letting the conflict fizzle, if they could use the opportunity to hit C&G despite having no treaty ties with which to do so. As such it was an unprovoked aggressive attack, which might have worked had Polaris not pulled out when they did. C&G would never escalate a conflict into a global war without treaties that compel them to do so. Though you won't believe me on that point, and I don't speak for C&G, but I do believe that C&G does not start wars with the simple reason of "We don't like you and you don't like us, also everyone else is occupied so let's get it on!"

Regardless of whether or not C&G would have started a CB-less aggressive war against TOP and IRON had Polaris not peaced (do you realize how silly that sounds now?), the fact is that TOP and IRON have shown without a doubt that that is exactly what they do, and should not be afforded the opportunity to do so again.


[quote name='Stetson' date='09 February 2010 - 03:43 AM' timestamp='1265704993' post='2170314']
To the matter at hand. Whether or not IRON was right, wrong or indifferent to ODN prior to this war is immaterial. They believed that C&G, who you just joined, was out to get them, and you just confirmed that they were right. Now, no matter how stupid their actions were in declaring on C&G without treaty obligations, and no matter the reasons they knew you to be aggressive towards them (hell they may consider their fault as well) the fact is that you were by your own words a threat to them. Their reasoning was perfectly sound, just their decision making process was flawed.
[/quote]

I never said ODN was "out to get them." We were seeking to isolate them so they would not have the opportunity to attack us. If we declared war on them, it would be in defense of our allies, not because we want to wipe them out. IRON's motives for trying to isolate us were the opposite.

Edited February 9, 2010 by Caesius

[shahenshah]

[quote name='Caesius' date='09 February 2010 - 01:14 PM' timestamp='1265703257' post='2170289']
IRON was trying to isolate us as well; this was the "grabass on Orange politics" that led to GGA canceling on us and aligning itself with IRON. IRON was not a victim of ODN's foreign policy any more than ODN was a victim of IRON's foreign policy. There are however two facts that make IRON more culpable for their current situation:

1. ODN was open to the possibility of re-establishing embassies. IRON was not.
2. IRON struck first. ODN did not.


If anyone needs to prove they are not a threat, it is IRON and TOP. Demanding white peace only shows that they wish to take advantage of the post-Karma climate to preclude us from imposing terms they deserve and ensuring our own continued security. If they want security as well, then they will have to stop plotting to take us out and at least [i]try[/i] to have amicable relations.

And somehow I doubt that if TOP and IRON were in our shoes, they would white peace. Anyone who thinks otherwise is hopelessly naive.
[/quote]

1. Oh please, first it was your govt caught around, spreading crap about us on embassies,
2. Then *you* tried grabass on Orange politics with R&R and others that that left OUT, lets not forget LEO 2 which isolated you further, but hey, blame the boogeyman! , I'm sure BnT planted that idea in your govt's head.
2. Then you told GGA about concerns for GGA's treaty with us, our msg to GGA was GGA and ODN business is not our concern, what was your message to them?. Blame the boogeyman! I'm pretty sure BnT had nothing to do with this one .

We simply maintained our relations and took them to the new level with our allies. You maybe surprised but IRON and R&R despite not being on the same side have really worked together greatly, because there are really things called cordial relations, friendly relations where strategic reasons are not always primary. Never we told R&R or GGA that we are concerned about their relations with ODN. You in your paranoia of threat against us have been leading policy to isolate us for months which backfired and we stood there and laughed. But hey, blame it on IRON. Thanks for confirming tho that you viewed us as a threat to you.

As for context of this war:

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='08 February 2010 - 06:43 PM' timestamp='1265636612' post='2168666']
TOP hit you because you'd already chosen to be on the other side of a global war which was in progress, and because you were the slated counter for wherever they entered the war. If you had not been backing the raiding side, you would not have been hit. TOP was never a 'threat' to C&G (as you could tell by looking at the connections of their allies) until you made them one by choosing the other side and not mentioning that you were pushing a peace agreement that would leave them out in the cold. (That is mostly Polar's fault but if you really didn't want a war, you could have tipped TOP off; considering the peace agreement came out before update you could have negotiated an instant peace before the war expanded again.) Don't forget that the pre-emptive strike was acquiesced to (if not backed) by the other parties in the Polar coalition as a valid military move.

Obviously it was not a good decision. But most of the reason for that is the outrageous spin C&G are putting on it. The fact is, if TOP wanted to crush you for no reason they had plenty of opportunities to do so pre-Karma and did not. The only reason you are at war now is because (i) you chose from the very beginning to be on the raiding side, through political and logistical support (and preparing for a military entrance against the very alliances you are now against), and (ii) you chose not to inform TOP/IRON of the impending peace agreement, or call a lightning peace with them once the agreement came out, even though you knew that they were likely to declare on the Polar side that update.
[/quote]


[quote name='Caesius' date='09 February 2010 - 01:49 PM' timestamp='1265705382' post='2170320']
C&G was trying to allow the NpO-\m/ conflict to resolve itself, which it did. C&G was not thrilled with the prospect of joining in on such a stupid war, since both sides were in the wrong.

Again, it was TOP and IRON who had no intention of letting the conflict fizzle, if they could use the opportunity to hit C&G despite having no treaty ties with which to do so.
[/quote]

I'm sure you guys went into peace mode couple days earlier as a routine exercise. If you were trying to resolve the conflict, you would not sit there with counters ready knowing a strike is coming and flooding our channels with insults , you'd go and say peace talks are on and things are calming down. You could have stopped this as much as we could, we didnt know the situation had changed, did you also not know?

We were not aware of peace between NpO and \m/, had we known there was no need for the strike. It has nothing to do with us not having an intention to letting the conflict fizzle, it would have been rather stupid of us to go pre-emptive knowing one side of the front is going to collapse moments after we go in. Fortunately for you, that happened moments after we had already gone in. Even Polaris membership initially wasn't sure in the initial hours when CnG was shouting its a TARP! set up by Archon and Grub .

Grub has already made it clear this is the same conflict, not a separate one you're trying to repeatedly say for days.

Edited February 9, 2010 by shahenshah

[Aeternos Astramora]

[quote name='Caesius' date='09 February 2010 - 02:49 AM' timestamp='1265705382' post='2170320']
C&G was trying to allow the NpO-\m/ conflict to resolve itself, which it did. C&G was not thrilled with the prospect of joining in on such a stupid war, since both sides were in the wrong.[/quote]
It only "resolved itself" right after TOP/IRON declared, and that's only because \m/ played it perfectly and got TOP/IRON screwed over by accepting the terms that had been on the table for days just as TOP/IRON attacked.

[quote]Again, it was TOP and IRON who had no intention of letting the conflict fizzle, if they could use the opportunity to hit C&G despite having no treaty ties with which to do so. As such it was an unprovoked aggressive attack, which might have worked had Polaris not pulled out when they did. C&G would never escalate a conflict into a global war without treaties that compel them to do so. Though you won't believe me on that point, and I don't speak for C&G, but I do believe that C&G does not start wars with the simple reason of "We don't like you and you don't like us, also everyone else is occupied so let's get it on!"[/quote]
Yeah, they'll just use CB's from any era of the game to declare war now. TOP/IRON knew that they had a target on themselves. It's undeniable. The fact that you're denying it just makes me laugh.

[quote]Regardless of whether or not C&G would have started a CB-less aggressive war against TOP and IRON had Polaris not peaced (do you realize how silly that sounds now?), the fact is that TOP and IRON have shown without a doubt that that is exactly what they do, and should not be afforded the opportunity to do so again.[/quote]
If you [i]know [/i]somebody is going to hit you, and you can hit them with what you see as an advantage, you do so.

[Caliph]

[quote name='Methrage' date='09 February 2010 - 12:47 AM' timestamp='1265705262' post='2170319']
A TOP applicant wouldn't know and is still in the interviewing process, although TOP has stated they are fighting for white peace. Glad you enjoyed the NSO/RAD war, although I was FCC at the time so I wasn't involved.
[/quote]
Well I do agree with that, but the posts I have seen from TOP members have not eluded to a formal TOP offering of white peace to C&G. Such posts do elude to they don't believe they will get white peace, and I have yet to see any TOP gov state, formally, that they have offered white peace to C&G.

I do agree that I do not think they would get White peace, as it is not in C&G's interests to give TOP/IRON/DAWN/TORN white peace so soon. I mean TOP/IRON/DAWN/TORN have proven they are a threat to C&G, and at this point in time TOP has indeed decimated several MK top nations, so white peace with TOP and IRON at this time puts the advantage clearly in TOP's favor. That, coupled with the fact that TOP/IRON struck first with an aggressive war that was not at all chaining with any other treaty, other than the "I don't like you" CB, proves that TOP/IRON and friends are, and remain, a threat to C&G.

Was C&G a threat to TOP/IRON prior to this? Potentially. But TOP/IRON's actions have ensured that their predictions for C&G have come true in a self fulfilling prophecy manner.

[quote name='Stetson' date='09 February 2010 - 12:43 AM' timestamp='1265704993' post='2170314']
I agree, I did somewhat derail the conversation onto tech raiding, but given that I consider this all one war (and yes I know we'll disagree on that) the first quote sounded an awful lot like "Tech Raid PM for Peace" coming from a member of an alliance who (again in my considered opinion) got this whole shindig kicked off by raiding an alliance. I'm done with my little morsel of irony now.

I appreciate that you no longer tech raid, like I said, you seem to be much to reasonable to be associated with \m/, but be that as it may, your leadership has declared your alliance as the poster child for tech raiding, so would assume by your continued membership that you agree with it despite your personal inclination.

I'm done with my little morsel of irony now.
[/quote]
You find it ironic that an \m/ member does not believe that it is in the best interests of C&G to white peace out of this war right now after TOP/IRON/DAWN/TORN declared war on them for the reason "i don't like you"?

[quote name='Stetson' date='09 February 2010 - 12:43 AM' timestamp='1265704993' post='2170314']
To the matter at hand. Whether or not IRON was right, wrong or indifferent to ODN prior to this war is immaterial. They believed that C&G, who you just joined, was out to get them, and you just confirmed that they were right. Now, no matter how stupid their actions were in declaring on C&G without treaty obligations, and no matter the reasons they knew you to be aggressive towards them (hell they may consider their fault as well) the fact is that you were by your own words a threat to them. Their reasoning was perfectly sound, just their decision making process was flawed.
[/quote]
If you desire to view the events as such, you must also concede the flipside that TOP/IRON/DAWN/TORN proved beyond any doubt they were a threat to C&G when they declared war on them. Therefore, by your logic here, C&G viewing TOP/IRON/DAWN/TORN as a potential threat was perfectly sound, and not flawed at all. TOP/IRON, by their own actions, were and are a direct threat to C&G.

[Caliph]

[quote name='Aeternos Astramora' date='09 February 2010 - 01:02 AM' timestamp='1265706120' post='2170327']
It only "resolved itself" right after TOP/IRON declared, and that's only because \m/ played it perfectly and got TOP/IRON screwed over by accepting the terms that had been on the table for days just as TOP/IRON attacked.
[/quote]
I will point out that \m/ only has 2 friends in the entire world, RoK and Poison Clan, neither of which are in C&G, nor are TOP/IRON/DAWN/TORN.

We have absolutely no reason to work in a plot so that C&G ends up in a war against TOP/IRON/DAWN/TORN.
None of the alliances in the C&G bloc, nor TOP/IRON/DAWN/TORN like \m/.

I'm not seeing any real benefit for \m/ to participate in some big conspiracy against you lot. Sure, you guys hate us, but then again so does C&G.

\m/ was in no way a part of any "conspiracy" to get TOP/IRON/DAWN/TORN. We were in peace talks with Polar prior to the TOP and friends coalition declaring war on C&G, and had agreed prior to that, but had to wait on our allies in Poison Clan to confirm they were down for the peace. Because, really, our only bond on "our" coalition that war was Poison Clan, the rest of you lot enterred not for \m/, you said so yourselves, so why would \m/ check in with you to decide to leave the war or not?

[avernite]

I would just like to ask:

Is there actually a BETTER CB than 'we are going to fight some day soon, with both of us doing our best to make that happen in the best possible circumstances'?

[shahenshah]

[quote name='Caliph' date='09 February 2010 - 02:04 PM' timestamp='1265706265' post='2170329']
That, coupled with the fact that TOP/IRON struck first with an aggressive war that was not at all chaining with any other treaty, other than the "I don't like you" CB, proves that TOP/IRON and friends are, and remain, a threat to C&G.
[/quote]

If you are going to be intentionally dense and go to the extremes of e-lawyering, may I suggest that IRON's CB was not 'I dont like you' we simply fulfilled Londo's request for war , blame Londo

[Caliph]

[quote name='avernite' date='09 February 2010 - 01:14 AM' timestamp='1265706867' post='2170337']
I would just like to ask:

Is there actually a BETTER CB than 'we are going to fight some day soon, with both of us doing our best to make that happen in the best possible circumstances'?
[/quote]
I would agree with such a CB, however that was not what happened. It wasn't a decision made by both C&G and TOP/IRON/DAWN/TORN, it was just TOP/IRON/DAWN/TORN deciding to take the action to make the fight happen in the best possible circumstances for them.

What happened was something completely unexpected, and I blame just random luck or poor timing on TOP/IRON/DAWN/TORN's part. It was a decent strategy, but not executed at the correct time.

[Caliph]

[quote name='shahenshah' date='09 February 2010 - 01:18 AM' timestamp='1265707081' post='2170342']
If you are going to be intentionally dense and go to the extremes of e-lawyering, may I suggest that IRON's CB was not 'I dont like you' we simply fulfilled Londo's request for war , blame Londo
[/quote]
Ha, well played good sir, well played

My prior post, the one you quoted, was mainly to show the poster how the train of thought he used to come to his conclusion does not come out in his favor when applied to the opposite side.

Perhaps he, and the rest, should think their arguments through and don't use thought processess that make their side look worse if applied to their side?

[Gamma Rho]

[quote name='Aeternos Astramora' date='09 February 2010 - 03:02 AM' timestamp='1265706120' post='2170327']
If you [i]know [/i]somebody is going to hit you, and you can hit them with what you see as an advantage, you do so.
[/quote]
Exactly! Somebody finally gets it.

Once Complaints and Grievances KNEW that both IRON and TOP were going to hit them (their war screens all suddenly showed declared wars and an official, alliance-wide declaration of war was posted on the international forums) you hit them with what you see as an advantage, ie. counter-attacking and making the most out of the other sides public relations blunder. You're onto it, man.

Wait.. You weren't referring to.. Were you?

Please share with the rest of us this incontrovertible proof that C&G was planning on hitting both IRON and TOP, enough to warrant the italicized 'know'. Thanks in advance. xo

[quote name='avernite' date='09 February 2010 - 03:14 AM' timestamp='1265706867' post='2170337']
I would just like to ask:

Is there actually a BETTER CB than 'we are going to fight some day soon, with both of us doing our best to make that happen in the best possible circumstances'?
[/quote]
It depends what you mean by 'better', personally I don't think there's any more legitimate CB than, 'we don't like you' or 'let's get this over with sooner rather than later'. As far as CN standards go however, I think that how this war is shaping up is proof enough that it's not a 'better' CB at all. It's not really all that surprising though, is it? Look around you - it's like these people have a little propaganda chip in their brains, if the facts and arguments don't come with a very thinly veiled agenda, they are not worth reading or hearing about.

[Fernando12]

James,

You talk about freedom...all I have to say is these words, you put them together and you'll see who is infringing on freedom:

Athens - Londo - UED - KDII

So your point about fighting for basic rights is nonsense.

[Arthur Blair]

[quote name='junkahoolik' date='09 February 2010 - 07:04 AM' timestamp='1265699074' post='2170215']
no, not really... we would like for CnG members and allies to stop acting like they are the victims in this whole mess.
[/quote]

If you wanted us to not be victims of your aggression you should have thought about that before attacking us and making us victims.

[junkahoolik]

[quote name='Arthur Blair' date='09 February 2010 - 01:26 PM' timestamp='1265714787' post='2170408']
If you wanted us to not be victims of your aggression you should have thought about that before attacking us and making us victims.
[/quote]

don't put words into my mouth please. i'm saying to stop portraying us as the bad guys like the OP did after doing all that scheming. wars are rare and i would rather have fun in such and not have to read threads like this during them.

[Mack Truck]

[quote name='avernite' date='09 February 2010 - 07:14 PM' timestamp='1265706867' post='2170337']
I would just like to ask:

Is there actually a BETTER CB than 'we are going to fight some day soon, with both of us doing our best to make that happen in the best possible circumstances'?
[/quote]

Yes, such as "I'm contractually obliged to defend my ally from your attacks" or "You spied on us" or whatever. I don't have any problem with the one used, but it's a bit trite to use it and then make out the other side to be the bad-guys for planning to do what you've actually just done.

Not that I'm saying you yourself have done so.

[Mack Truck]

[quote name='Methrage' date='09 February 2010 - 04:26 PM' timestamp='1265696795' post='2170150']
Members of C&G have already admitted on OWF they saw TOP as an enemy before this war began, so to claim TOP had nothing to worry about from C&G before they delcared is just propaganda. If you guys actually wanted to show TOP they don't need to worry about you guys you would give white peace, but instead you would rather continue the failed policy of keeping former enemies down that ended badly for NPO. Karma gets everyone eventually I suppose.
[/quote]

So to prove that we weren't going to attack them we should give them white-peace for attacking us? Rather nonsensical, I think.

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='Mack Truck' date='09 February 2010 - 07:04 AM' timestamp='1265717063' post='2170423']
Yes, such as "I'm contractually obliged to defend my ally from your attacks" or "You spied on us" or whatever. I don't have any problem with the one used, but it's a bit trite to use it and then make out the [b]other side to be the bad-guys for planning to do what you've actually just done[/b].

Not that I'm saying you yourself have done so.
[/quote]
If your side was planning to do the same thing then I don't see how them saving you the trouble of posting a DoW makes them the bad guy, seems they did you a favor.

Edited February 9, 2010 by Methrage

[lebubu]

[quote name='Methrage' date='09 February 2010 - 02:04 PM' timestamp='1265720675' post='2170452']
If your side was planning to do the same thing
[/quote]

It was not. I'm not sure where you're getting this from.

[The Eye]

This thread is clearly IC

[HellAngel]

[quote name='lebubu' date='09 February 2010 - 02:07 PM' timestamp='1265720877' post='2170456']
It was not. I'm not sure where you're getting this from.
[/quote]

Ahh fun stuff. Why was Athens and Sparta hiding in peace mode then?

Maybe theres an economical bonus to that...

[Arthur Blair]

[quote name='HellAngel' date='09 February 2010 - 01:33 PM' timestamp='1265722384' post='2170480']
Ahh fun stuff. Why was Athens and Sparta hiding in peace mode then?

Maybe theres an economical bonus to that...
[/quote]

Do you or anyone on your side have anything but imagination to base yourselves on? I mean really. Give us somethig tangible, not all these would bes and what ifs.

[Bob Janova]

Sigh ... C&G people still claiming they weren't lined up to counter TOP and IRON I see.

As for the OP, 'freedom from' is as important as 'freedom to', and you are (were, anyway) fighting for the right to trample all over the freedoms of those who don't have powerful protectors. That's a far less moral freedom than the freedom to live peacefully, which is what NpO were trying to enforce.

Of course now you're fighting for the freedom of C&G to apply Hegemony-era arguments and perennial war (and playing the victim in propaganda).

[Arthur Blair]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='09 February 2010 - 01:40 PM' timestamp='1265722801' post='2170488']
Sigh ... C&G people still claiming they weren't lined up to counter TOP and IRON I see.

As for the OP, 'freedom from' is as important as 'freedom to', and you are (were, anyway) fighting for the right to trample all over the freedoms of those who don't have powerful protectors. That's a far less moral freedom than the freedom to live peacefully, which is what NpO were trying to enforce.

Of course now you're fighting for the freedom of C&G to apply Hegemony-era arguments and perennial war (and playing the victim in propaganda).
[/quote]

We are always lined up to counter anyone that attacks us. Have we stated otherwise? Where?

Most of us are fighting the war because they attacked us. Most of us thought \m/ were retards for what they did. These wars have different reasons.

What is wrong with the hegemony-era arguments employed? Can you provide examples? When have we conducted perennial warfare? Are you saying that forum banter from heated members is now CnG policy? DO YOU WANT IT TO BE, BOB??

And yes, we are actually the victim when they attack us. It's not just propganda, it's how the victim word works. Unless we can now change the meanings of words, so chair is now sun and so forth, that makes sense.

[Diomede]

With respects to the OP's alliance, and the professional (and surprisingly, friendly) war being fought between us, he is still utterly off-base and I would like to think the reason we are fighting in the first place proves this. Despite that, I am glad it spawned a conversation that actually held my interest past the third page.

Edited February 9, 2010 by Diomede