Invicta Passes Two Million!

[The Pansy]

[quote name='hizzy' date='17 February 2010 - 03:59 PM' timestamp='1266422393' post='2187584']
It took you 24 hours to deplete your stock?
[/quote]
Didn't you know Bob has a recession currently?

[Buds The Man]

[quote name='Sigrun Vapneir' date='17 February 2010 - 07:32 AM' timestamp='1266409937' post='2187454']
This bit keeps getting repeated so I thought it was worth looking into. Turns out it's simply a lie.

[b]The Valhalla-Iron treaty has no explicit non-chaining clause. NONE. [/b]

[url="http://www.cnvalhalla.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=3393"]No Wedge between us[/url]. No non-chaining clause. It is poorly written (self-contradictory on its face) but the only way to get a non-chaining clause in there is to interpret it as necessarily implied by Article II. If you do that then Valhalla was not obligated. If you refuse to do that then Valhalla was obligated and it's effectively a MADPact despite being advertised as an MDOAP. In neither case is FAN in any different category from anyone else at war with IRON at the moment under the words of that treaty.

[b]Did you really think no one on our side could [i]read?[/i] Seriously, this is insulting. [/b]



The offer that was made to you was reasonable, the most lenient terms imaginable, and it's a no-haggle price frankly, we came down to the very lowest offer we could possibly make right off instead of asking for more and playing games. Some people thought y'all were good honourable folks that could be dealt with straightforwardly. I guess you taught them eh?

Your "counteroffer" on the other hand is not reasonable at all. The surrendering alliance does not place terms on the alliance they surrender to. I'm sure you all have that speech memorised by now, [b]you just need to make that mental leap to realising that y'all arent so incredibly special that you get to live under different rules from everyone else and then that will suddenly make sense to you.[/b]
[/quote]
Well see we dont consider this activated on the OA portion of a treaty as we entered under the Defensive clause of that treaty. FAN attacked IRON unprovoked. Valhallas entrance is strictly in Defense of IRON so chaining has nothing to do with it. Either FAN has treaties and they entered upon that treaty or they wanted to settle something from the past and they hit IRON. So be it, we are now defending IRON from FAN.

If the second bolded portion is true then FAN does not get to live under special rules and therefor entered in to this conflict agressively with out CB and Valhalla is doing nothing else but honoring the treaty that we have signed. **NOTE we have no issues with FANabout how they came in and are currently enjoying our tussle with them.*****

The only other failure in your statement is one needs to feel defeated or with out hope before one is willing to surrender, we are still willing and able to fight and therefore reject the current offer, which is well with in our rights to do so. I see no need for insults such as this one[quote]Some people thought y'all were good honourable folks that could be dealt with straightforwardly. I guess you taught them eh?
[/quote]I have been in contact with your Crown Prince and your Reichsgeneral, there is no need to be insulting here or attempt to puff you chest out we know the odds we know what we stand to loose or gain and we understand the choices we make. Out of all people i would have thought NoR would understand that better than anybody.

[quote name='Ashoka the Great' date='17 February 2010 - 08:43 AM' timestamp='1266414196' post='2187487']
It's still just business. Nordreich has no quarrel with Invicta beyond the current conflict.

It [u]would[/u] be entertaining, perhaps, if Invicta and NoR had a genuine reason to dislike each other. But no, the entertainment comes not from the hammering but rather from the belief by several defeated alliances that they are entitled to dictate what their terms of surrender will be.

I am not in Nordreich's government and have not been for some time, but I do know something of the culture. Until the alliances it's fighting cry "Uncle!" the fighting will continue. It's really that simple. Some could be let go with a handshake and a "Good game, chaps," but not Invicta. They declared war on Nordreich, not the other way around. They surrender or the fighting goes on.

They are, of course, welcome to test Nordreich's resolve in this.
[/quote]
Glad to see its still just buisness.

[Owned-You]

[quote name='Learz' date='17 February 2010 - 09:01 AM' timestamp='1266418887' post='2187554']
The boat's already sailed bud:[Snip] I dunno what you get out of that, but I read that as "we'll drop our allies if we [b]think[/b] preserving our nations will help in the long run."


1) Well, given NV jumped in after we'd pretty much depleted our stockpiles, that's understandable; but I'll let that one go. I should have been more clear, I'm referring to the orchestrators of this war, not alliances being pulled in via treaties. Also, your line about Vidian policy went completely over my head.

2) Indeed, that's where we have a problem. You want to limit us and our allies in this conflict, but not yourselves (which is understandable). However, it should be equally understandable why we may be resisting that.

3) I find it funny you don't deny you're in a curbstomp; not that there's anything wrong with that, just pointin' it out. And also, you didn't respond to my point. Again, you're just saying "we know what's best for you, and we're going to keep punching you until you realize that." Why not read my posts and understand [i]we already heard you[/i], but have decided that what we're doing is for the best. So you can keep punching us, just don't try to crudely justify like that [/quote]

1) Funny enough, Raasaa was our Emperor when the No CB War Happened and MCXA/Echelon asked us to leave BLEU to avoid being hit...I'm quite sure following your line of logic we would have left Polaris in a second, however we didn't obviously.
2) It makes no sense to surrender, then attempt to re-enter a war. Generally speaking, Surrendering involves canceling of treaties, reps, post-war terms, and neutrality for the remainder of wars...Usually Victors impose that. Ourselves being the victors in this war would be imposing neutrality for the duration of the conflict. I however, cannot fathom why you all would see it fit to place that term on ourselves; nor claim it to be a problem for you all...considering your not in a position to assist anyone.
3) No, this isn't a curbstomp. Only two alliances are directly focusing there attacks on you as of now, the rest where strategic DoW's to hit others. A curbstomp implies your being focused on by all your attackers, not just NV & NoR with other alliances sprinkled in between. That said, I've got no problems with curbstomps...I've been on the receiving end of them and I've been on the giving end. I've never really considered it a terrible act, just a reality of the game... Lastly, yes we know what's best for you. Surrendering.

[M6 Redneck]

Go Invitca - continuing to do it right!

Finest alliance here by far.

M6

[zzzptm]

[quote name='Jorost' date='15 February 2010 - 06:06 PM' timestamp='1266278807' post='2183655']
Today is a good day to die.
[/quote]

Dear Jorost,

I understand that NV and Invicta are currently at war, but there is such a thing as decency and respect for intellectual property. If you will look at the first war NV declared on Invicta, you will see it is mine. You will also see that my reason was "Hoka Hey!", which translates into "Today is a good day to die."

I am shocked and saddened at seeing you use the Nueva Vida battle slogan in your own propaganda. I had been a voice asking for no reparations from Invicta, but now I must change my view and demand 2 tech, 6 soldiers, and $455 in damages over this tremendous affront to Nueva Vida.

Good sir Jorost, we in Nueva Vida make our [size="6"][b][i]own[/i][/b][/size] propaganda. We ask that you use more originality in creating your own propaganda.

Thank you for reading. Let us return to our war.

[Thrash]

[quote name='zzzptm' date='17 February 2010 - 08:11 PM' timestamp='1266455485' post='2188460']
but now I must change my view and demand 2 tech, 6 soldiers, and $455 in damages over this tremendous affront to Nueva Vida.
[/quote]

In light of the current circumstances, we might need a day or two to come up with that.

[chefjoe]

[quote name='Sigrun Vapneir' date='17 February 2010 - 04:32 AM' timestamp='1266409937' post='2187454']
This bit keeps getting repeated so I thought it was worth looking into. Turns out it's simply a lie.

The Valhalla-Iron treaty has no explicit non-chaining clause. NONE.


[/quote]

Sorry Sigrun, but in this you are wrong.

We worked on the non-chain part addition to the treaty just after the karma war.

Only thing were guilty of is being lazy and not editing or replacing the old treaty with the new addition.

Im a bit suprised you jumped right to the strong words of 'lie' etc in your post off the bat though. U bitter about something?

So yea, we're/Im lazy, shoot me......ohwai u are

Edited February 18, 2010 by chefjoe

[dvdcchn]

[quote name='chefjoe' date='17 February 2010 - 08:19 PM' timestamp='1266459541' post='2188609']
Sorry Sigrun, but in this you are wrong.

We worked on the non-chain part addition to the treaty just after the karma war.

Only thing were guilty of is being lazy and not editing or replacing the old treaty with the new addition.

Im a bit suprised you jumped right to the strong words of 'lie' etc in your post off the bat though. U bitter about something?

So yea, we're/Im lazy, shoot me......ohwai u are
[/quote]
dang i knew there was something i forgot to do when i took office :/

[Sigrun Vapneir]

[quote name='Buds The Man' date='18 February 2010 - 04:33 AM' timestamp='1266431632' post='2187734']
Well see we dont consider this activated on the OA portion of a treaty as we entered under the Defensive clause of that treaty. FAN attacked IRON unprovoked. [/quote]

But in fact FAN did not attack IRON unprovoked. You make it sound like IRON was just walking down the street minding his own business thinking about what to have for lunch when FAN jumped out of a shadow with a baseball bat and started working him over.

FAN attacked IRON in response to IRON attacking no less than 7 other alliances including some they are rather friendly with. [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=79442"]Iron says [/url] because a member of ONE of those alliances had "trolled their channel." A rather aggressive and extreme reäction, but at any rate.

[quote]The only other failure in your statement is one needs to feel defeated or with out hope before one is willing to surrender, we are still willing and able to fight and therefore reject the current offer, which is well with in our rights to do so. [/quote]

I dont believe anyone has denied that it is within your rights. I do believe I've seen quite a bit of implication that we are being evil and holding you at war unnecessarily however, and being the peace-loving flower child that I am I do want us to be clear about the truth. As you made clear above the truth is that you are unwilling to surrender, under even the lightest of terms, and the war continues because you give us no other choice, not because we are persecuting you or evil or because of any issue of ours at all.

So that is your choice, that is your choice to make, that is fine. [i]Aut pax aut bellum.[/i] It's all good then eh? Just spare me the clumsy propaganda and let's both concentrate on fighting.

[quote name='chefjoe' date='18 February 2010 - 12:19 PM' timestamp='1266459541' post='2188609']
Sorry Sigrun, but in this you are wrong.

We worked on the non-chain part addition to the treaty just after the karma war.

Only thing were guilty of is being lazy and not editing or replacing the old treaty with the new addition.[/quote]

A secret treaty revision you conveniently forgot to post even on your own board eh?

How incredibly convenient.

[chefjoe]

[quote name='Sigrun Vapneir' date='17 February 2010 - 11:20 PM' timestamp='1266477645' post='2189173']


[b]A secret treaty revision you conveniently forgot to post even on your own board eh?

How incredibly convenient.[/b]
[/quote]

lol says the alliance at war with us thru a sekrit treaty chain with 'friends' of FAN. cmon now Sigrun dont be a hypocrit, you are better then that, or used to be anyhow.

Edited February 18, 2010 by chefjoe

[Sigrun Vapneir]

[quote name='chefjoe' date='18 February 2010 - 05:36 PM' timestamp='1266478594' post='2189219']
lol says the alliance at war with us thru a sekrit treaty chain with 'friends' of FAN.
[/quote]

As it happens we entered against you directly in response to a request from the Dark Templar, though I am not the one claiming that is a particularly important fact to begin with.

[chefjoe]

[quote name='Sigrun Vapneir' date='18 February 2010 - 12:04 AM' timestamp='1266480263' post='2189311']
As it happens we entered against you directly in response to a request from the Dark Templar, though I am not the one claiming that is a particularly important fact to begin with.
[/quote]

Never said NoR did directly. I said thru a sekrit treaty chain with 'friends' of FAN. Just as you said, you supported DT whom supports PC and vice versa whom claim(maybe one does idk) to have a sekrit unwritten 'treaty' or 'agreement' with FAN. As you are NoR, you obviously support said sekrit unwritten agreements by your support of said action. Thats totaly cool, no problem, but to then try and thumb your nose at my mistake in not editing in a rewrite in a 'posted' and 'public' treaty is rather suprising given that situation. W/E though, it isnt the first bit of hypocrisy I have seen here on PB and im sure it wont be the last. Just disapointing coming from someone whom I thought was a cool and fair person.

[Sigrun Vapneir]

[quote name='chefjoe' date='18 February 2010 - 06:41 PM' timestamp='1266482488' post='2189399']
Never said NoR did directly. I said thru a sekrit treaty chain with 'friends' of FAN. Just as you said, you supported DT whom supports PC and vice versa whom claim(maybe one does idk) to have a sekrit unwritten 'treaty' or 'agreement' with FAN. [/quote]

I havent seen any such claim, you have a link?

Just curious, it isnt actually that important.

[quote]W/E though, it isnt the first bit of hypocrisy I have seen here on PB and im sure it wont be the last. Just disapointing coming from someone whom I thought was a cool and fair person.
[/quote]

This is the second time you have called me a hypocrite without reason. I dont think that word means what you think it means.

I will help you, you see, in order for this supposed 'sekrit treaty chain' of yours to even start to make me out towards a hypocrite, there are at least two necessary conditions. One would be for me to have previously argued that it is somehow awful and evil to defend anyone without a current binding announced and posted treaty requiring such defense available for inspection. Oh, wait, I am not the one who was just arguing that am I?

[Learz]

[quote name='hizzy' date='17 February 2010 - 10:59 AM' timestamp='1266422393' post='2187584']
It took you 24 hours to deplete your stock?
[/quote]
Ah ha, it seems I got the dates mixed up. I concede the point to you. However, in the interests of preserving my virtual manhood, I'm going to point out that 1M is quite good relatively speaking. Neener neener neener.

[quote name='Owned-You' date='17 February 2010 - 06:13 PM' timestamp='1266448415' post='2188230']
1) Funny enough, Raasaa was our Emperor when the No CB War Happened and MCXA/Echelon asked us to leave BLEU to avoid being hit...I'm quite sure following your line of logic we would have left Polaris in a second, however we didn't obviously.
2) It makes no sense to surrender, then attempt to re-enter a war. Generally speaking, Surrendering involves canceling of treaties, reps, post-war terms, and neutrality for the remainder of wars...Usually Victors impose that. Ourselves being the victors in this war would be imposing neutrality for the duration of the conflict. I however, cannot fathom why you all would see it fit to place that term on ourselves; nor claim it to be a problem for you all...considering your not in a position to assist anyone.
3) No, this isn't a curbstomp. Only two alliances are directly focusing there attacks on you as of now, the rest where strategic DoW's to hit others. A curbstomp implies your being focused on by all your attackers, not just NV & NoR with other alliances sprinkled in between. That said, I've got no problems with curbstomps...I've been on the receiving end of them and I've been on the giving end. I've never really considered it a terrible act, just a reality of the game... Lastly, yes we know what's best for you. Surrendering.
[/quote]
1) Again, I point to raasaa's quote. NV (IMO) has been very honorable and always helps her allies; however, the words of someone who signs off on official statements generally carries some weight.
2) While it may seem odd to stay in the war, we're here because we support our allies, and are seeking the best outcome considering the circumstances. If you'll excuse us, while your offer is generous, we believe that we can do more good by staying in a bit longer.
(Also, if we're in no "position to assist anyone", why impose neutrality as a term?)
3) I dunno, we're fighting quite a few active wars with many alliances. Given that we are massively outnumbered, and are taking focused damage, I'd still consider it a curbstomp (although whether that's due to our actions or not is clearly up for debate ).

[quote name='zzzptm' date='17 February 2010 - 08:11 PM' timestamp='1266455485' post='2188460']
I am shocked and saddened at seeing you use the Nueva Vida battle slogan in your own propaganda. I had been a voice asking for no reparations from Invicta, but now I must change my view and demand 2 tech, 6 soldiers, and $455 in damages over this tremendous affront to Nueva Vida.
[/quote]
Our counteroffer is a Big Mac and 2 large fries. Still warm from the radiation.

Edited February 18, 2010 by Learz

[kriekfreak]

[quote name='Learz' date='18 February 2010 - 02:26 PM' timestamp='1266503184' post='2189628']
Our counteroffer is a Big Mac and 2 large fries. Still warm from the radiation.
[/quote]

Didn't know Invicta had Moo and potato in their ranks.

[Buds The Man]

[quote name='Sigrun Vapneir' date='18 February 2010 - 02:20 AM' timestamp='1266477645' post='2189173']
But in fact FAN did not attack IRON unprovoked. You make it sound like IRON was just walking down the street minding his own business thinking about what to have for lunch when FAN jumped out of a shadow with a baseball bat and started working him over.

FAN attacked IRON in response to IRON attacking no less than 7 other alliances including some they are rather friendly with. [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=79442"]Iron says [/url] because a member of ONE of those alliances had "trolled their channel." A rather aggressive and extreme reäction, but at any rate.



I dont believe anyone has denied that it is within your rights. [b]I do believe I've seen quite a bit of implication that we are being evil and holding you at war unnecessarily [/b]however, and being the peace-loving flower child that I am I do want us to be clear about the truth. As you made clear above the truth is that you are unwilling to surrender, under even the lightest of terms, and the war continues because you give us no other choice, not because we are persecuting you or evil or because of any issue of ours at all.

So that is your choice, that is your choice to make, that is fine. [i]Aut pax aut bellum.[/i] It's all good then eh? Just spare me the clumsy propaganda and let's both concentrate on fighting.



A secret treaty revision you conveniently forgot to post even on your own board eh?

How incredibly convenient.
[/quote]

Never once have i stated anyone was evil but when we see others comming out and stating that these lenient terms have been given and you better accept them or else I do believe that it requires a response. Im good with fighting atm, but I will defend what we are doing verbally if necessary and at this point i believe it is. As some of your allies have threatened to increase the terms as this wears on. If you dont wish a propoganda battle dont start one. Valhalla has remained jovial in most proceedings on the OWF as we find it regrettable that we are faced against people we truly have no issues with. I see no enemies on the battle field meerly good solid oppenents that after this cluster is done we can go have some beers and talk about the Nuke that got away. This is more buisness to us rather than personal.

[quote name='Sigrun Vapneir' date='18 February 2010 - 04:51 AM' timestamp='1266486673' post='2189462']
I havent seen any such claim, you have a link?

Just curious, it isnt actually that important.



This is the second time you have called me a hypocrite without reason. I dont think that word means what you think it means.

I will help you, you see, in order for this supposed 'sekrit treaty chain' of yours to even start to make me out towards a hypocrite, there are at least two necessary conditions. One would be for me to have previously argued that it is somehow awful and evil to defend anyone without a current binding announced and posted treaty requiring such defense available for inspection. Oh, wait, I am not the one who was just arguing that am I?
[/quote]
I believe it was quoted in PC dow that FAN are their friends and that was there reason to enter which chained to DT on the OA which Chained to you on the OA if i recall the break down correctly.


Cheers sigrun now back to my command center as SF. Austin has begun to try and invade my liquor cabinet and I was saving that brandy for after the war. I must stop him.

[raasaa]

[quote name='Learz' date='18 February 2010 - 09:26 AM' timestamp='1266503184' post='2189628']
2) While it may seem odd to stay in the war, we're here because we support our allies, and are seeking the best outcome considering the circumstances. If you'll excuse us, while your offer is generous, we believe that we can do more good by staying in a bit longer.
[b](Also, if we're in no "position to assist anyone", why impose neutrality as a term?)[/b]
[/quote]
Thats for you own safety....to ensure that you don't do something as stupid as re-entering the war and really getting killed

[chefjoe]

[quote name='Sigrun Vapneir' date='18 February 2010 - 01:51 AM' timestamp='1266486673' post='2189462']
I havent seen any such claim, you have a link? [/quote]

Look in PC and DT's DoW....its there.




[quote]This is the second time you have called me a hypocrite without reason. I dont think that word means what you think it means.

I will help you, you see, in order for this supposed 'sekrit treaty chain' of yours to even start to make me out towards a hypocrite, there are at least two necessary conditions. One would be for me to have previously argued that it is somehow awful and evil to defend anyone without a current binding announced and posted treaty requiring such defense available for inspection. Oh, wait, I am not the one who was just arguing that am I?
[/quote]


Actually no,

[quote]

Main Entry: hyp·o·crite
Pronunciation: \ˈhi-pə-ˌkrit\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English ypocrite, from Anglo-French, from Late Latin hypocrita, from Greek hypokritēs actor, hypocrite, from hypokrinesthai
Date: 13th century
1 : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings

[/quote]

#2 covers it.

Like I said above, your stated belief is that sekrit or 'unwritten' treaties are OK by your supporting your allies DoW's which contained such actions.

You then were very contradictory(trying to say WE were 'lying' becuase our cluase wasnt there and was 'unwritten') regarding Valhalla's oversight in editing in a change to our treaty with IRON, so currently the cluase was/is 'unwritten'

Seems to meet the criterium to me sigrun....

Edited February 18, 2010 by chefjoe

[Herbs]

I wouldn't be too proud of insufficient warchests throwing a good part of my alliance near bill lock.

[hammer]

Lots of our name around this thread, despite us not engaging Invicta.


/goes back to shooting at folks who fight properly *waves to Valhalla*
/obligatory shoutout to our fantastic co-belligerents at PC, NoR, and DT

[Sigrun Vapneir]

[quote name='Buds The Man' date='19 February 2010 - 02:22 AM' timestamp='1266510151' post='2189731']
This is more buisness to us rather than personal. [/quote]

It's business for us too. I refer back to Kingzogs post.

[quote name='chefjoe' date='19 February 2010 - 07:08 AM' timestamp='1266527323' post='2190186']
Look in PC and DT's DoW....its there. [/quote]

No it's not. You just wasted another 5 minutes of my life double-checking to be sure. Neither declarations says a thing about sekrit treaties.

[quote]Like I said above, your stated belief is that sekrit or 'unwritten' treaties are OK by your supporting your allies DoW's which contained such actions.[/quote]

And I am getting rather tired of you continuing to put words in my mouth that I never wrote. Cheap.

[quote]You then were very contradictory(trying to say WE were 'lying' becuase our cluase wasnt there and was 'unwritten') regarding Valhalla's oversight in editing in a change to our treaty with IRON, so currently the cluase was/is 'unwritten'[/quote]

Still not contradictory to any position I have [i]actually[/i] taken.

You keep wanting to put words in my mouth, even words that if you actually knew me at all you would know I wouldnt utter, instead of actually dealing with my points.

You clearly are arguing that 'unwritten' treaties are foul naughty things and yet in the very same breath you are in effect citing a nonexistent, unannounced, unpublished treaty that amounts to the same thing, by the most charitable and trusting interpretation.

I have been consistent. I thought the entire line of argument was specious and intended as a distraction when you first started with it. Doesnt mean I cant point out that your argument is deliciously inconsistent without endorsing either of your arguments myself.

Look, what's important here is what Kingzog said. But if you feel the need to argue about distractions then we can do that too.

[chefjoe]

[quote name='Sigrun Vapneir' date='18 February 2010 - 02:12 PM' timestamp='1266531122' post='2190335']
No it's not. You just wasted another 5 minutes of my life double-checking to be sure. Neither declarations says a thing about sekrit treaties.[/quote]

IDK what your talking about Sigrun, but at the bottom of PC's DoW it clearly says for 'FAN', your own alliances DoW states it in the [i]title[/i]. The threads then go on to argue about things but contain posts acknowledging 'sekrit' ties to FAN.

Thats totaly cool, w/e. Only reason im even bringing it up was becuase of your bashing of Valhalla's stance regarding an issue that was ratified by us yet mistakingly not listed yet while you give tacit approval of such unwritten things being no big deal or OK. Also, YES you havent 'said' or 'posted' your stance regarding said issues but like I posted before your support of them thru your support of your alliance is tacit approval of such things which made my argument valid.

I personaly dont care anymore as I feel that anyone reading this will see the situation and know it for what it is. So argue more about semantics or split hairs or back peddle or have a beer, IDC, im done with this line of conversation after this post. If you want to continue it I would be more then happy to do so in a private venue.
[quote]
[b]You clearly are arguing that 'unwritten' treaties are foul naughty things[/b]
[/quote]

Actually, no I havent said that at all.

Edited February 18, 2010 by chefjoe

[zzzptm]

[quote name='Learz' date='18 February 2010 - 08:26 AM' timestamp='1266503184' post='2189628']
Our counteroffer is a Big Mac and 2 large fries. Still warm from the radiation.
[/quote]

1 tech, 5 soldiers, and a video of Haflinger singing "Purple Rain."

[Haflinger]

[quote name='zzzptm' date='18 February 2010 - 09:08 PM' timestamp='1266545301' post='2190935']
1 tech, 5 soldiers, and a video of Haflinger singing "Purple Rain."
[/quote]
You've evidently never heard my singing voice, or you'd realize that my sending such a thing could be considered a war crime.

[scythegfx]

[quote name='Haflinger' date='18 February 2010 - 09:44 PM' timestamp='1266547446' post='2191032']
You've evidently never heard my singing voice, or you'd realize that my sending such a thing could be considered a war crime.
[/quote]

It's true