FOK Declaration of War

[LiquidMercury]

[quote name='neneko' date='24 February 2010 - 12:12 PM' timestamp='1267035374' post='2201720']
LM, The part of my post you replied to that I edited in should suffice as response to you. The e-lawyering and backpedaling from your initial stance in the war is sad to see.
[/quote]

As I've said these are my thoughts. Why would I actively want to blow up CnG when I actually LIKE most of the people there? I have great personal relations with many government from the various groups of CnG and still talk to them regularly about things completely unrelated to this war. My position about all this hasn't changed. Archon can probably testify himself if he were to choose to do so that I (me as in TOP had no clue) about making my own alliance signing an MDAP with MK and then hitting \m/ and company after they raided. I also approached Grub and had intentions to approach Gremlins, Umbrella, and all my other friends throughout the globe to have them try and sign MDAP with me in a new alliance and go kaboom boom (hey it would of been a blast ) MY reasons have never changed. As I've stated, my reasons may not have been the same as all of TOP, and some of TOP did indeed want to take a swipe at CnG. To say otherwise would be naive. Do I really need to insert bogus disclaimers of "my opinions is not that of the government of TOP blah blah blah" after every post? Just like Bob's posts aren't representative of VE as a whole (considering they're on the other side yet he is lobbying for us).

[LiquidMercury]

[quote name='AirMe' date='24 February 2010 - 12:18 PM' timestamp='1267035703' post='2201731']
So now you guys are saying that you will ruin it for everyone else if you don't get what you want? The world survived VietFAN. I suspect it will survive this.
[/quote]

I'm saying that a POSSIBLE by-product of an eternal war is people leaving this world.

Branmir: I'm going to team up with AirMe, Archon, Xiphosis and pull a polaris here to come do Karma 2.0 on you :other cool smiley faces:

[Branimir]

[quote name='LiquidMercury' date='24 February 2010 - 07:21 PM' timestamp='1267035902' post='2201737']Branmir: I'm going to team up with AirMe, Archon, Xiphosis and pull a polaris here to come do Karma 2.0 on you :other cool smiley faces:[/quote]
You know you love to hate us.

[LiquidMercury]

[quote name='Branimir' date='24 February 2010 - 12:23 PM' timestamp='1267035998' post='2201743']
You know you love to hate us.
[/quote]

LM calls for a ceasefire to roll NPO, put this in your sig if you're down.

[neneko]

[quote name='LiquidMercury' date='24 February 2010 - 07:19 PM' timestamp='1267035808' post='2201735']
As I've said these are my thoughts. Why would I actively want to blow up CnG when I actually LIKE most of the people there? I have great personal relations with many government from the various groups of CnG and still talk to them regularly about things completely unrelated to this war. My position about all this hasn't changed. Archon can probably testify himself if he were to choose to do so that I (me as in TOP had no clue) about making my own alliance signing an MDAP with MK and then hitting \m/ and company after they raided. I also approached Grub and had intentions to approach Gremlins, Umbrella, and all my other friends throughout the globe to have them try and sign MDAP with me in a new alliance and go kaboom boom (hey it would of been a blast ) MY reasons have never changed. As I've stated, my reasons may not have been the same as all of TOP, and some of TOP did indeed want to take a swipe at CnG. To say otherwise would be naive. Do I really need to insert bogus disclaimers of "my opinions is not that of the government of TOP blah blah blah" after every post? Just like Bob's posts aren't representative of VE as a whole (considering they're on the other side yet he is lobbying for us).
[/quote]
I'm sure you got a bunch of friends in CnG. That's fairly irrelevant though. As is your personal reasons to support this war. The fact is that TOP as a whole declared war on CnG to hit them when their allies was tied up elsewhere. They stated this openly to the world (although with a little smoother words of course). Now that stance isn't beneficial to TOP though. With the polar conflict being over it's in your best interest to tie your entrance to polar and nothing else since that would be a good reason for you to get peace. That's why we're seeing the e-lawyering of your previous statements now. I find it rather tasteless and cowardly to be honest.

As for me repeating myself alot. That's what happend when you try to argue with janova. It's hard to come up with original ways to respond after replying to 10 of his identical posts.

[Doitzel]

[quote name='LiquidMercury' date='24 February 2010 - 01:13 PM' timestamp='1267035420' post='2201721']
And yes it is sad that NPO will be able to be back at #1 after all this and released from terms
[/quote]
No. What's sad is that you think your alliance is better -- and less complicit -- in the world we sought to dismantle along with the NPO than NPO is. We didn't need TOP to down the unchecked power of Pacific last time; we did so in spite of it. This war is nothing more and nothing less than judgment. The final curtain has come to call on the old world order and TOP is finally answering for their crimes, as should have happened a year ago.

[Branimir]

[quote name='LiquidMercury' date='24 February 2010 - 07:29 PM' timestamp='1267036390' post='2201752']
LM calls for a ceasefire to roll NPO, put this in your sig if you're down.[/quote]
Eh, if only the escape card from your epic blunder you call "preemptive strike" by your respective military genius would be that simple to obtain, wizard.
Ignoring Ivan's advice,...such fail.

We be here, though, LM. Sadly, around the top of the table.

Carry on now, gents.

[Bob Janova]

[quote]As for me repeating myself alot. That's what happend when you try to argue with janova. It's hard to come up with original ways to respond after replying to 10 of his identical posts[/quote]
Maybe you should stop being wrong so I don't have to rebut the same point 10 times. In this case, that's what's happened.

[quote]You seem to forget that top made it clear in their DoW that defeating CnG was not related to the ongoing conflict. [/quote]
Oh, let's see about that ... From the [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=79441]DoW in question[/url]:
[quote name=TOP DoW]The Order of the Paradox herein announces its entry into this conflict ...

We agree with the New Polar Order's reasons for war against \m/, and we consider ourselves part of that particular side of the war ...

To [i]all[/i] alongside whom we fight in this larger war: You have our support. We stand together.[/quote]
So the reason that 'fact' doesn't stick is simply because it's not a fact. The DoW is actually very clear that TOP's entrance [i]is[/i] related to the ongoing conflict, it states it [i]three times[/i], as opposed to the once that 'defeating' C&G is mentioned.

[Hiro Nakara]

I have one query really, maybe you could help with LM? If TOP are not bothered about fighting eternal war, then why all the bawwing about you haven't given us terms and yada yada yada. (not you, but some are flogging that line of defence) You surly know that your not getting white peace? Continuing to expect that outcome is pointless? I agree you can flog the "we haven't even been given terms yet either" line as that would be right. But the continuous bawwing about ohh no, there comes another alliance dog piling on gets irritating ( smart move in my eyes when facing such opponents as TOP) yet others can't seem to grasp that simple fact. If your guys were happy to war eternally then it doesn't make sense to cry about white peace, when you know for 100% that is not going to happen, or cry about the methods that are used to bring you down, there is an old saying, you pissed the bed, you lie in it.

I'm asking you because you're quite rational and I know I will get a serious awnser, rather than others reply and it be NO U!! WHITE PEACE NOAWWWW awnser.

Edited February 24, 2010 by Hiro Nakara

[LiquidMercury]

[quote name='Elyat' date='24 February 2010 - 12:32 PM' timestamp='1267036552' post='2201758']
No. What's sad is that you think your alliance is better -- and less complicit -- in the world we sought to dismantle along with the NPO than NPO is. We didn't need TOP to down the unchecked power of Pacific last time; we did so in spite of it. This war is nothing more and nothing less than judgment. The final curtain has come to call on the old world order and TOP is finally answering for their crimes, as should have happened a year ago.
[/quote]

It's hard not to think of TOP a bit better then NPO. If we're really talking about old world order last call here arguably all alliances in Q barring I'd say Gremlins as they were at the forefront of leaving Q and essentially the breaking point should deserve to be rolled? Sparta, FOK, MHA, TOP all had their lot thrown in with NPO right up until Karma. Though I do agree that FOK/Sparta probably did not have the relations to NPO that MHA/TOP did. Your counterpoint of course is that TOP wasn't fully involved in Karma, which I have no response to for lack of one. If we are dictating our (alliances as a whole) involvement in Karma as the point of cleansing of old-world crimes then Sparta with their lack of top tier involvement, MHA with their blown staggers in enormous amounts, the order of 15 against NPO with the exception of GOD that protested GOD keeping them all at eternal war with NPO, and of course TOP's withdrawal from Echelon when it did not agree with keeping people out of government (after turning a new leaf mind you) are all equivicable I would say.

Or is it that TOP in our arrogance/confidence and being major proponents of peaceful solutions (ironic how this is a 180 from that) has lead to us being labeled as "the ones that got away?" Or is it our ties with IRON who have to us been stand-up friends and allies, who undeniably have chosen that path in part out of necessity but true desire to do so as well. I'm assuming you'll say it's a combination of all. The fact is all that were in Q were aparty to the power base that NPO had (polaris was aparty to it as well). If you are going to judge us, judge us all. As someone who fought for the same cause as you to the best of my ability, I say that err in your judgment. I know what I fought for then and what I continue to fight for (in terms of words, I fight with my nukes because I have brought war upon myself but I am still forever a warrior for peace, a warrior for friends, and a warrior for fairness).

[neneko]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='24 February 2010 - 07:40 PM' timestamp='1267037013' post='2201770']
Maybe you should stop being wrong so I don't have to rebut the same point 10 times. In this case, that's what's happened.
[/quote]
You never give me any rebuttal you just repeat the same thing to someone else. If I was wrong I'd assume you'd shown it to me at least once.

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='24 February 2010 - 07:40 PM' timestamp='1267037013' post='2201770']
Oh, let's see about that ... From the [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=79441]DoW in question[/url]:

So the reason that 'fact' doesn't stick is simply because it's not a fact. The DoW is actually very clear that TOP's entrance [i]is[/i] related to the ongoing conflict, it states it [i]three times[/i], as opposed to the once that 'defeating' C&G is mentioned.
[/quote]
Funny place you choose to cut off that quote.
Here's the rest of it
[quote]
...For our part, however, much our reason to enter this war lies in our desire to defeat those who have shown time and time again, in public and in private, that doing harm to us is high on their agenda[/quote]
What's that? Is that... a second reason to enter the war? Yeah you can try to e-lawyer those words all you want. You know what they mean.

Saying that the second reason doesn't matter because it's only mentioned once is some pretty awesome reasoning though.

Edited February 24, 2010 by neneko

[LiquidMercury]

[quote name='Branimir' date='24 February 2010 - 12:35 PM' timestamp='1267036752' post='2201763']
Eh, if only the escape card from your epic blunder you call "preemptive strike" by your respective military genius would be that simple to obtain, wizard.
Ignoring Ivan's advice,...such fail.

We be here, though, LM. Sadly, around the top of the table.

Carry on now, gents.
[/quote]

Oh come on, surely you know I was jesting considering I put all the smileys in just like MK does after I say things! Really I was just joking though. I know the preemptive strike wasn't the most brilliant move nor do I claim it was military genius (though I do believe that things would of played out much much differently had Polaris not done a loopdy do). As such, I'll continue to ignore Ivan's "advice".

[Thorgrum]

[quote name='LiquidMercury' date='24 February 2010 - 06:45 PM' timestamp='1267037339' post='2201781']
Or is it our ties with IRON who have to us been stand-up friends and allies, who undeniably have chosen that path in part out of necessity but true desire to do so as well.
[/quote]

and the elephant in the room gets a nod....

[Bob Janova]

Neneko ... . It doesn't matter what their reasons for entering the war were, although LM has directly told you right here that you are wrong about that as well. It flat out states in the DoW that the new front is related to the ongoing war, and then you try to use the DoW as 'evidence' that it wasn't.

Let's make this really simple. The DoW, paraphrased, is 'We are entering this war as part of a coalition. We'd also like to beat C&G. To our coalition partners, we stand with you.' How on earth does the second part of that make the first and third void? That's what you're trying to claim and it's just silly.

Edit: Yes, the ties to IRON, an alliance which is widely hated and which did 'escape' from Karma after a history of Hegemonic actions, is a big reason that TOP is disliked. I tried to warn you guys about the tie to IRON back in the summer, and it doesn't surprise me that it's that which has brought you down.

Edited February 24, 2010 by Bob Janova

[Branimir]

[quote name='LiquidMercury' date='24 February 2010 - 07:47 PM' timestamp='1267037457' post='2201788']Really I was just joking though. [/quote]
And I was just poking fun at you, as I dont really like you, LM. ;D

Yes, true about the Polar part. Though maybe, you know, putting so much on the line based on Grub's trustfulness was a mistake to begin with,...
Anyway, sidetracked.

More on topic, the DoW on first glance seems somewhat not needed considering the odds, but obviously it is. Fights between former friends are always the most ugly ones, emotionally. You have fun with that.

Edited February 24, 2010 by Branimir

[neneko]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='24 February 2010 - 07:52 PM' timestamp='1267037738' post='2201798']
Neneko ... . It doesn't matter what their reasons for entering the war were, although LM has directly told you right here that you are wrong about that as well. It flat out states in the DoW that the new front is related to the ongoing war, and then you try to use the DoW as 'evidence' that it wasn't.
[/quote]
LM told me that he personally had nothing against cng. You'd be much better at this if you actually read the posts you're referring to.

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='24 February 2010 - 07:52 PM' timestamp='1267037738' post='2201798']
Let's make this really simple. The DoW, paraphrased, is 'We are entering this war as part of a coalition. We'd also like to beat C&G. To our coalition partners, we stand with you.' How on earth does the second part of that make the first and third void? That's what you're trying to claim and it's just silly.
[/quote]
None of the reasons are voided by another. That works both ways. TOP entered the war to fight for the polar coalition AND to take down cng. Now the second reason isn't beneficial to TOP so they (and you) try to sweep it under the carpet. As you said the reasons doesn't void eachother. Just because one of TOPs reasons was to support the polar coalition doesn't mean it was the only one. They wanted to take us out and obviously that failed big time so now they try to backpedal. So no I'm not claiming any reason is voided I claim that both the reasons were there from the start and that both are still there even if you people try to cover the second one up.

Edited February 24, 2010 by neneko

[Archon]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='24 February 2010 - 01:52 PM' timestamp='1267037738' post='2201798']
Neneko ... . It doesn't matter what their reasons for entering the war were, although LM has directly told you right here that you are wrong about that as well. It flat out states in the DoW that the new front is related to the ongoing war, and then you try to use the DoW as 'evidence' that it wasn't.

Let's make this really simple. The DoW, paraphrased, is 'We are entering this war as part of a coalition. We'd also like to beat C&G. To our coalition partners, we stand with you.' How on earth does the second part of that make the first and third void? That's what you're trying to claim and it's just silly.
[/quote]

What. She was saying that there is a second reason that has been backpedaled away from. You then tried to refute that by half-assedly quoting Crymson's DoW where you explicitly cut out the part that verified her statement. She then pointed it out. You then tried to claim she was arguing something else.

[LiquidMercury]

[quote name='Hiro Nakara' date='24 February 2010 - 12:41 PM' timestamp='1267037106' post='2201774']
I have one query really maybe you could help with LM? if TOP are not bothered about fighting eternal war, then why all the bawwing about you haven't given us terms and yada yada yada. (not you, but some are flogging that line of defence) You surly know that your not getting white peace? Continuing to expect that outcome is pointless? I agree you can flog the "we haven't even been given terms yet either" line as that would be right. But the continoeus bawwing about ohh no there comes another alliance dog piling on gets irritating ( smart move in my eyes when facing such opponents as TOP) yet others can't seem to grasp that simple fact. If your guys were happy to war eternally then it doesn't make sense to cry about white peace when you know for 100% that is not going to happen or cry about the methods that are used to bring you down, there is an old saying you pissed the bed, you lie in it.

I'm asking you because you're quite rational and I know I will get a serious awnser, rather than others reply and it be NO U!! WHITE PEACE NOAWWWW awnser.
[/quote]

It's a matter of hope I suppose. I would like to see global peace because I think it's the right thing to do as the context of the initial overall war has changed (This honestly should have been done within the first 2-3 days of Polaris declaring peace if we think about this logically). I understand that CnG as a whole would not want to give white peace after taking a multitude of high-tech nukes. While I can without a doubt say that I would give white peace if the roles were reversed, I cannot expect people to live to the same standards I place upon myself. If you were in our shoes though, would you not ask for white peace? Just like CnG for time on end was bawwing about TOP playing peace-making in situations and sticking our noses in places we should not have (yes see I can admit a screw up) and called us stat collectors, I can understand you being irritated with our baaawwing in regards to adding another one on top of the 21 alliances at war with us (and yes this is militarily what you should of done when facing an enemy with a concentrated tier prepared for war. I'd of done the same against Polaris in their mid tier had a war ever broken out along those lines). Realize that in part, it is a defense mechanism. What else can we do but say "oh well, here comes another one"? In the sense of FOK it is not that it is another alliance coming at us, but that it is FOK. It's an emotional stab to the heart more then anything. While you say that we are happy to war eternally, yet we cry for white peace, I believe you mistake us. We say we are READY for an eternal war. Do we wish for it or are we happy to have one? No. It's more fun to ride the cyclical nature of war/peace and be an active member of the political world which, as FAN can probably testify to, they were not during their VietFAN era. As an active and generally older (age-wise we don't have many young players) the enjoyment for us comes from being political players while excelling at nation building and war. So as I said, while we are READY for an eternal war, we would much rather have white peace and be active members of the community striving for more fun instead of having to play the role of detractor/enemy. Do I believe we'll get white peace? No. Will I continue to push for it? Of course. It's the logical thing to do. Just like you always [ooc] under-bid in contract negotiations [ooc] you under bid in what you hope to receive for peace. Ideologically there are things that TOP will refuse. We will refuse things similar to what NPO did to many alliances. We will not disband, we will not limit people being involved in our alliance or in the manner they are (govt restrictions). There are various other things we will not do that we are WILLING to fight eternally for. For our right to deny those things, just as FAN fought for the right to exist in the manner they saw fit, we are WILLING and READY to fight for our beliefs, our ideological culture, and our existence (though I seriously doubt this last one is even a question as I hope all here have realized the atrocity involved with disbanding an alliance). So yes many members will cry for white peace though it may not be given, partially because we truly felt betrayed by Polaris and that we feel as though the context of our entrance has changed. I say may not be given because eventually, it may truly become so costly (in terms of sheer monetary loss as I've stated turtling is much cheaper then taking hits, to continue a war against us, since we are both willing and ready to carry to that extent that it may just be the logical and smart thing for all sides to peace out globally. Looking from a cost/benefit analysis, that is why I would give white peace. And if it turns out that a war pops up 3 months from now and we do it all again, at least it'd be fun (though I seriously doubt that would happen, at least not the same sides). Just because I pissed the bed, doesn't mean I can't change the sheets.

[LiquidMercury]

[quote name='Branimir' date='24 February 2010 - 12:53 PM' timestamp='1267037796' post='2201800']
And I was just poking fun at you, as I dont really like you, LM. ;D

Yes, true about the Polar part. Though maybe, you know, putting so much on the line based on Grub's trustfulness was a mistake to begin with,...
Anyway, sidetracked.

More on topic, the DoW on first glance seems somewhat not needed considering the odds, but obviously it is. Fights between former friends are always the most ugly ones, emotionally. You have fun with that.
[/quote]

I actually am quite neutral towards you Branimir, though I find some of your posts irritating and illogical as I'm sure you find mine the same way at times.

Yes, putting so much on the line based on Grub's trustfulness was a mistake. I honestly felt as though the personal relationship outside of any AA was more then it was. I feel that way about a few people in this game, sometimes I do judge it wrong though.

I'd agree that the DoW may have been needed due to the tier balance, I just wish they could of found someone else to do it.

[Bob Janova]

Here's what Neneko said:
[quote]top made it clear in their DoW that defeating CnG was not related to the ongoing conflict[/quote]
The DoW clearly states that their entrance [i]was[/i] related to the ongoing conflict. Since defeating C&G was part of the DoW, that is obviously also related to the ongoing conflict, which TOP just entered by issuing the DoW. Yes, there are two reasons in there (though contrary to the C&G propaganda line, entering the existing coalition war is given far more prominence than defeating C&G). Two reasons which are related – that's why they're in the same DoW!

Edit: I will admit to a small misunderstanding, as she seemed to me to be claiming that TOP's [i]entrance to the war[/i] was unrelated to the existing war, i.e. the 'it's a new war' argument which is still prevalent on your side. However, she was still wrong. Two reasons for war that are included as part of the same DoW are certainly related.

Edited February 24, 2010 by Bob Janova

[LiquidMercury]

[quote name='neneko' date='24 February 2010 - 01:00 PM' timestamp='1267038264' post='2201808']
LM told me that he personally had nothing against cng. You'd be much better at this if you actually read the posts you're referring to.


None of the reasons are voided by another. That works both ways. TOP entered the war to fight for the polar coalition AND to take down cng. Now the second reason isn't beneficial to TOP so they (and you) try to sweep it under the carpet. As you said the reasons doesn't void eachother. Just because one of TOPs reasons was to support the polar coalition doesn't mean it was the only one. They wanted to take us out and obviously that failed big time so now they try to backpedal. So no I'm not claiming any reason is voided I claim that both the reasons were there from the start and that both are still there even if you people try to cover the second one up.
[/quote]

I'd say that for many, the second reason was a bonus. It's like entering against an alliance say NPO, AND getting to nook Moo. You don't enter to nook Moo, but it is something that is enjoyable for some. For others it is saddening such as the case here with FOK. I feel as though many people here have a hard time throwing nukes our way (FOKers) but they do it because they were asked to. Some like Tromp (correct me if I'm wrong), enjoy the war completely, and it's just an added bonus that he gets to throw his nukes at us.

[Hiro Nakara]

[quote name='LiquidMercury' date='24 February 2010 - 07:03 PM' timestamp='1267038419' post='2201812']
It's a matter of hope I suppose. I would like to see global peace because I think it's the right thing to do as the context of the initial overall war has changed (This honestly should have been done within the first 2-3 days of Polaris declaring peace if we think about this logically). I understand that CnG as a whole would not want to give white peace after taking a multitude of high-tech nukes. While I can without a doubt say that I would give white peace if the roles were reversed, I cannot expect people to live to the same standards I place upon myself. If you were in our shoes though, would you not ask for white peace? Just like CnG for time on end was bawwing about TOP playing peace-making in situations and sticking our noses in places we should not have (yes see I can admit a screw up) and called us stat collectors, I can understand you being irritated with our baaawwing in regards to adding another one on top of the 21 alliances at war with us (and yes this is militarily what you should of done when facing an enemy with a concentrated tier prepared for war. I'd of done the same against Polaris in their mid tier had a war ever broken out along those lines). Realize that in part, it is a defense mechanism. What else can we do but say "oh well, here comes another one"? In the sense of FOK it is not that it is another alliance coming at us, but that it is FOK. It's an emotional stab to the heart more then anything. While you say that we are happy to war eternally, yet we cry for white peace, I believe you mistake us. We say we are READY for an eternal war. Do we wish for it or are we happy to have one? No. It's more fun to ride the cyclical nature of war/peace and be an active member of the political world which, as FAN can probably testify to, they were not during their VietFAN era. As an active and generally older (age-wise we don't have many young players) the enjoyment for us comes from being political players while excelling at nation building and war. So as I said, while we are READY for an eternal war, we would much rather have white peace and be active members of the community striving for more fun instead of having to play the role of detractor/enemy. Do I believe we'll get white peace? No. Will I continue to push for it? Of course. It's the logical thing to do. Just like you always [ooc] under-bid in contract negotiations [ooc] you under bid in what you hope to receive for peace. Ideologically there are things that TOP will refuse. We will refuse things similar to what NPO did to many alliances. We will not disband, we will not limit people being involved in our alliance or in the manner they are (govt restrictions). There are various other things we will not do that we are WILLING to fight eternally for. For our right to deny those things, just as FAN fought for the right to exist in the manner they saw fit, we are WILLING and READY to fight for our beliefs, our ideological culture, and our existence (though I seriously doubt this last one is even a question as I hope all here have realized the atrocity involved with disbanding an alliance). So yes many members will cry for white peace though it may not be given, partially because we truly felt betrayed by Polaris and that we feel as though the context of our entrance has changed. I say may not be given because eventually, it may truly become so costly (in terms of sheer monetary loss as I've stated turtling is much cheaper then taking hits, to continue a war against us, since we are both willing and ready to carry to that extent that it may just be the logical and smart thing for all sides to peace out globally. Looking from a cost/benefit analysis, that is why I would give white peace. And if it turns out that a war pops up 3 months from now and we do it all again, at least it'd be fun (though I seriously doubt that would happen, at least not the same sides). Just because I pissed the bed, doesn't mean I can't change the sheets.
[/quote]


Thank you LM, as always you manage to help me understand things that bit better.

[neneko]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='24 February 2010 - 08:10 PM' timestamp='1267038811' post='2201819']
Here's what Neneko said:

The DoW clearly states that their entrance [i]was[/i] related to the ongoing conflict. Since defeating C&G was part of the DoW, that is obviously also related to the ongoing conflict, which TOP just entered by issuing the DoW. Yes, there are two reasons in there (though contrary to the C&G propaganda line, entering the existing coalition war is given far more prominence than defeating C&G). Two reasons which are related – that's why they're in the same DoW!
[/quote]
By defeating I was refering to this part of the DoW.
[quote]
For our part, however, much our reason to enter this war lies in our desire to [b]defeat[/b] those who have shown time and time again, in public and in private, that doing harm to us is high on their agenda
[/quote]
There were two reasons and one was unrelated to the ongoing conflict. That's why we see you and top backpedal and e-lawyer that one. One of TOPs reasons for entering this war was to take out cng and your e-lawyering can't change that fact. It doesn't matter how many times either of the reasons are stated in the DoW. The important fact that we both acknowledge now is that they're both there.

Edited February 24, 2010 by neneko

[Bob Janova]

Well I'm glad that you now agree that TOP entered as part of a coalition and that it isn't a whole new war.

It doesn't say that they wanted to 'take out' C&G, it says '[i]defeat[/i]'. You can defeat an alliance without taking them out, and as part of a wider war effort. That sentence really isn't the call to a severe rolling that your side is taking it as.

[neneko]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='24 February 2010 - 08:23 PM' timestamp='1267039618' post='2201838']
Well I'm glad that you now agree that TOP entered as part of a coalition and that it isn't a whole new war.

It doesn't say that they wanted to 'take out' C&G, it says '[i]defeat[/i]'. You can defeat an alliance without taking them out, and as part of a wider war effort. That sentence really isn't the call to a severe rolling that your side is taking it as.
[/quote]
I wasn't arguing over whether or not this should be called a new war or just a new front. That is semantics and doesn't change anything.

The important part was that their will to defeat us was unrelated to the ongoing conflict and that's why that reason have become a uncomfortable thorn in tops side that they're trying to back away from. We have both acknowledged this now so I guess this argument is over.