Notice of Cancellation

[pezstar]

[quote name='Jim Bob the Glorious' date='24 February 2010 - 12:42 PM' timestamp='1267033536' post='2201654']
Like all discussions here, the truth means little yet I'll provide it anyways.

As the Polar vs \m/ war wound down, Fark asked everyone for a beer review. From Carpe Diem to STA, that was our condition. STA complained because we had not exchanged even a cruise missile. My membership and gov had a general like for STA and we dropped the demand and moved on. We desired an end to the Shortbus war.

We didn't view the Beer review as a term of surrender and if you look back at that thread you will see that we agreed to do one ourselves. We still don't. Yet we do have our traditions and we will continue them. You fight in anger, you drink in peace.

Its important to note that Ivan Moldavi never came to Fark for peace for NSO during this time. We spoke but the topic was getting out its TC allies. The conversation was short, Ivan had to leave for class, but appointed Lintwad his voice.

Fark, Lintwad, and its allies in TC entered a channel and discussed terms. It was then that we, Fark, mentioned our concern that if we peaced out on NSO then they may still come back and hit us again in support of IRON. Even worse, they may hit one of our allies. Lintwad agreed that it was a possibility, stated that he would talk to Ivan and get back with us.

Days go by and we peace out everyone else but never hear from Ivan or Lintwad. Unable to track them down via IRC during those 4 or 5 days, we spoke with Polar. It is during our talks with Polar trying to arrange peace for NSO that we get declared on.

While Ivan was unable to find the time to talk with us, his post count on these forums grew ever larger. It is from these posts that we learn that his issue is 'Beer Review'. It is in his posts on this forum that he states that a way to move past it would be for Fark to agree to a Health Food review.

Review the logs I have already posted. You will see our agreement, at that time, to exchange reviews. Also notice that Ivan has repeatedly lied that he was never offered peace yet the logs exist. Fark was working to get NSO out.

Ivan also likes to claim that he has gave White Peace during Karma. A quick check of the terms given TPF proves interesting. You see trivial joke reps, you see a recognition of surrender. A quick check of the terms given DOOM and ML is also interesting. It contains provisions about staying out of war, not aiding the enemy, and a notice of surrender.

When Ivan gives 'White Peace' to others, it contains many of the same things he rejected in our 'peace'. This isnt a shock. He's long claimed one thing and done another. He doesn't play CN, he plays OWF.

Going forward, NSO will not be getting 'White Peace' from Fark. They have been given many chances to get out at terms they found acceptable only to back away without notice. Like everyone else that Fark fights today, if they want peace it will come through surrender. [/quote]


First and foremost, STA never complained about the beer review because we never exchanged fire. We flat out refused to do them because there was no way we were accepting ANY terms at all in any of our wars in that conflict. I told you that I was pretty sure I could work it out. When Uhtred found out that you were insisting on them, this conversation happened: http://pastebin.com/XfnQ2Bwm . As in, the moment the man in charge came to you saying it was a problem, you dropped them. You were quite insistent with me in our conversations that these would need to be done.

Second of all, your stupid beer reviews are important to you. That's about the only place they're important. Since you have the power to hold NSO in war indefinitely if they don't bend to your will and go get drunk, I said it before and I'll say it again. You can't actually force anyone to do a stupid beer review for peace. You even agreed on that point. You can certainly try to get someone to review a fake in-game only beer for peace, but that's all you can get.

Finally, you guys suck for this. Really, you do. I came to Bob from a link on the place that birthed your alliance, and I always really liked you guys. I've pushed STA to get to know you better in the past. That you're seriously planning on attempting to force terms on this alliance, one who really has been nothing but honorable and admirable in their choices to do what they had to to protect their allies and friends speaks volumes about just how easy it is for an alliance who spent their early days being completely oppressed and in what looked to be eternal war from the very beginning to forget what it's like to have very little choice in their future once they have gained a modicum of power. For shame.

Edited February 24, 2010 by pezstar

[CaptainImpavid]

[quote name='Branimir' date='24 February 2010 - 01:02 PM' timestamp='1267034783' post='2201706']
That line would have some meaning behind it, if you dropped the beer review clause.

If what you say is true, and you do not want to humiliate NSO, then how benign you see that clause to be is irrelevant as its only relevant how NSO sees it. If they see it as humiliating, forcing it on them is to try to humiliate them. If its a irrelevant clause to you, dropping it wouldn't be a problem would it?

If you do not seek destruction of NSO which already lost big majority of strength they had-- at this point when they are being reduced to rubble-- you would back off and end it. To continue at this point is purely to completely destroy them.

Maybe you should think about what you are trying to sell here.
[/quote]


While you bring up some interesting points, I feel I should point out that I didn't write all those OTHER words in my post for no reason. Especially those other words where I addressed what you are saying. (even before you wrote them!)

This all comes down to a balance of desires. NSO wants peace, but they also want to not do the beer review. Fine, it is up to them to decide which of those wants are more important to them. We, the people fighting NSO, don't really have a strong feeling one way or the other on peace, since the war isn't really all that painful. We do, however, have a desire to not to let libel and smear campaigns go without repercussion. Before NSO lied, repeatedly, about not being offered peace, and made several other public statements that, on the surface, do not appear designed to endear us to them, leaving things at a simple beer review and a no reentry clause would have been one thing. Nixing the beer review would have been easily achievable, even. STA managed it by being civil and respectable.

But rejecting relatively lenient terms, and then spitting in the faces of people offering them, and THEN asking for nicer terms, rarely ends in success.

[Town Drunk]

I'm a little late, but gratz Polaris! Nice to see you finally shook the monkey off your back.

[Bob Janova]

[quote]it is right and proper for Polaris to stick to the side more ideologically aligned with itself[/quote]
You mean the side that supports tech raiding alliances, the side that you directly threatened and almost came to confrontation with a few months ago, and the side which backed up \m/ and not you at the start of this war?

[Branimir]

[quote name='CaptainImpavid' date='24 February 2010 - 07:24 PM' timestamp='1267036050' post='2201746']This all comes down to a balance of desires. [/quote]
And yours are quite clear by pushing for a humiliating peace terms for NSO.

Just man up to it and go about your business. Do not waste our collective time. And about NSO lying about the peace terms being offered or not-- I leave that to NSO for response as they already did.

[Il Impero Romano]

[quote name='Branimir' date='24 February 2010 - 05:45 PM' timestamp='1267033730' post='2201667']
I understand that some want to push this line in some kind of really failed attempt at making things look better for Polars. And if they repeat that line for 156783 times as they usually do in such cases of propaganda push, they hope they will succeed in selling it.

But lets put things into context here. Polaris had a political, moral, military, friendship and treaty obligation to secure peace for NSO when they pulled out originally. They failed.

Ivan said openly here, how initially there was no plan to re enter and to correct this. That came to be only after a epic backfire in public opinion for Polaris. Then they deploy marginally justification for that how they can not muster more although they later on continue to declare on TOP (the most war prepared alliance out there) also effectively putting themselves on the side in opposition to NSO completely then nulling any possible effort in defending NSO to begin with.

After everything, they again sell out NSO, by peacing out leaving them again to dry. NSO didn't want to make a beer review? Their right to have that stand, irrelevant what you think of it, and Polaris obligation after everything to help their ally and back them in what their ally deems right as NSO did when declaring in their defense in the first place-- in a stupid war NpO started. Allies back allies, friendship>infra, isn't that the mantra here?

Whatever really, this all makes my head hurt.
[/quote]

VE and Polar have a rather sour history, and while bettering with time, there are many in each who still have quite a bit of contempt despite the mutual respect we managed to maintain throughout our war (see Mr. Sponge for refrence), so there is no stake in bettering their image for me. I'm just speaking from an objective reasonable person standpoint. Also, I would note that polar did not deploy marginally and were not treated marginally while the conflict was in full sway, as the numbers reflect.

Either way, the real content of my point was in the later sentences of the post you quoted, and the line which you did was merely an opening premise. I believe the rest of your post is addressed therein and also in my follow up response to lint.

I will agree though that this all makes my head hurt as well.


[quote name='Wad of Lint' date='24 February 2010 - 06:03 PM' timestamp='1267034825' post='2201708']
The crux of the issue, my friend, is that we have been jerked around, and as a result have made our decision in regards to Polaris. The points behind any other "issue" as people wish to twist them, does not make a difference as far as how we've been treated by the very alliance we came in to defend.
[/quote]

Like I said, that all may very well be true, I was more speaking to the cause of the cause though (i.e. why it is silly to fault Polar here). I guess it depends on perspective...

[mdnss69]

Did you Polar really too stupid [s]to read[/s] ?

[hizzy]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='24 February 2010 - 10:29 PM' timestamp='1267036381' post='2201751']
You mean the side that supports tech raiding alliances, the side that you directly threatened and almost came to confrontation with a few months ago, and the side which backed up \m/ and not you at the start of this war?
[/quote]

You know there is far more to it than simply tech raiding. For starters, even while most people who supported \m/ only did so out of obligation rather than true desire, the war still was not about [i]just[/i] tech raiding.

And, even if it was, there is far more to ideology than how one feels about tech raiding. TSO could launch a unilateral war against all tech raiders, but do you think NpO would cheer them on? Of course not.

[Wad of Lint]

[quote name='Il Impero Romano' date='24 February 2010 - 01:32 PM' timestamp='1267036565' post='2201759']
Like I said, that all may very well be true, I was more speaking to the cause of the cause though (i.e. why it is silly to fault Polar here). I guess it depends on perspective...
[/quote]

The transgressions which warrant the cancellation of the treaty do not start with the current withdrawal. It is only the end of the line. The perspective is the line of issues which have led to this point. The arguing of their current reasons for peace does not change that we have been wronged throughout this war.

That said, we have historically been treated very well which allowed us to hold out some hope over the past few weeks. Unfortunately we were continuously let down which has led us to make this difficult and unfortunate decision. I can only hope that as the months progress we [NpO and NSO] can both reach a strong level of respect once again.

[CaptainImpavid]

[quote name='pezstar' date='24 February 2010 - 01:09 PM' timestamp='1267035172' post='2201718']

That you're seriously planning on attempting to force terms on this alliance, [b]one who really has been nothing but honorable and admirable in their choices to do what they had to to protect their allies and friends[/b] speaks volumes about just how easy it is for an alliance who spent their early days being completely oppressed and in what looked to be eternal war from the very beginning to forget what it's like to have very little choice in their future once they have gained a modicum of power. For shame.
[/quote]

I will concede that your bolded statement is true, or at least that you could argue the point. However, their conduct on the battlefield and in the diplomatic arena has been far from either honorable or admirable. As an example I will contrast your own conduct while an opponent of CSN with that of NSO. In our DoW on STA, you yourself showed up to take issue with some of our reasoning, and I believe you and I hashed it out a little, and maybe not ended up agreeing with each other, but we were civil, made our points, and accepted the situation as it was and moved on.

Whereas, on the other hand, NSO has been nothing but belligerent, rude, combative, and pedantic in their communications with us. They have, in fact, done a grand total of, adjusted for inflation, nothing at all to endear us to them.

The difference between this situation and Fark's conflict with the GOONS in ancient history, are numerous. First amongst them being that when they realized that public outcries at injustice and brutality were not working, and we in fact counter productive, they SHUT THE HELL UP, stayed off the OWF, and humbly sought out their antagonists elsewhere to work out agreeable terms.

And even then it took several months before peace of any kind was offered. Whereas NSO has been offered peace twice at least already.

My personal opinion, and one that can carry no real weight given I am no longer a member of Fark, but one that I feel will hold at least kernels of accuracy, is this: Were NSO to cease making libelous proclamations on the OWF, were their members to cease finding any excuse to deride or antagonize or insult Fark members or her allies, and were they willing to actually sit at the table and compromise rather than simply toss offering back in Fark's face with a "up yours, give me better," they would VERY quickly see much fairer offers coming across the table. One's conduct towards others directly effects others' conduct back.

[Bob Janova]

[quote name='hizzy' date='24 February 2010 - 06:39 PM' timestamp='1267036973' post='2201768']
You know there is far more to it than simply tech raiding. For starters, even while most people who supported \m/ only did so out of obligation rather than true desire, the war still was not about [i]just[/i] tech raiding.

And, even if it was, there is far more to ideology than how one feels about tech raiding. TSO could launch a unilateral war against all tech raiders, but do you think NpO would cheer them on? Of course not.
[/quote]
This is true to some extent, but tech raiding alliances is so bad that Polar started a war over it. It's very hard to credit the side that recently did exactly that – exactly the one thing that Polar has found so heinous as to ignore the treaty web and start a war – being ideologically aligned with Polar. I don't agree that C&G 'who supported \m/ only did so out of obligation rather than true desire' either ... I think you must not have been reading these boards in the days after Polar declared.

[Wad of Lint]

[quote name='CaptainImpavid' date='24 February 2010 - 01:43 PM' timestamp='1267037237' post='2201777']
Whereas, on the other hand, NSO has been nothing but belligerent, rude, combative, and pedantic in their communications with us. They have, in fact, done a grand total of, adjusted for inflation, nothing at all to endear us to them.[/quote]

Unfortunately I have seen logs that speak volumes regarding FARK's "diplomatic" communications. I think your statement works on both sides of the fence here. That said, I have also been treated with respect by some specific individuals and I'd like to believe I've given the same in return.

[quote]
My personal opinion, and one that can carry no real weight given I am no longer a member of Fark, but one that I feel will hold at least kernels of accuracy, is this: Were NSO to cease making libelous proclamations on the OWF, were their members to cease finding any excuse to deride or antagonize or insult Fark members or her allies, and were they willing to actually sit at the table and compromise rather than simply toss offering back in Fark's face with a "up yours, give me better," they would VERY quickly see much fairer offers coming across the table. One's conduct towards others directly effects others' conduct back.
[/quote]

Compromise requires give and take from both sides of the equation.

Edited February 24, 2010 by Wad of Lint

[Branimir]

[quote name='Il Impero Romano' date='24 February 2010 - 07:32 PM' timestamp='1267036565' post='2201759'] I believe the rest of your post is addressed therein and also in my follow up response to lint.[/quote]
You mean, in your personal opinion on how benign or not the term is. Irrelevant to the point of my post.

What is relevant to any true ally of NSO is how they see it, if they want to be true allies of theirs. Especially after wronging them originally.
NpO had a obligation they chosen to ignore twice now. What would be more polite is to then just cancel the treaty and not making NSO do that as well.

Honestly, cant be bothered further with this crap. You all carry on gents.

[Stormsend]

[quote name='mdnss69' date='24 February 2010 - 12:37 PM' timestamp='1267036847' post='2201765']
Did you Polar really too stupid [s]to read[/s] ?
[/quote]
I'm sorry. What?

[pezstar]

[quote name='CaptainImpavid' date='24 February 2010 - 01:43 PM' timestamp='1267037237' post='2201777']
I will concede that your bolded statement is true, or at least that you could argue the point. However, their conduct on the battlefield and in the diplomatic arena has been far from either honorable or admirable. As an example I will contrast your own conduct while an opponent of CSN with that of NSO. In our DoW on STA, you yourself showed up to take issue with some of our reasoning, and I believe you and I hashed it out a little, and maybe not ended up agreeing with each other, but we were civil, made our points, and accepted the situation as it was and moved on.

Whereas, on the other hand, NSO has been nothing but belligerent, rude, combative, and pedantic in their communications with us. They have, in fact, done a grand total of, adjusted for inflation, nothing at all to endear us to them.

The difference between this situation and Fark's conflict with the GOONS in ancient history, are numerous. First amongst them being that when they realized that public outcries at injustice and brutality were not working, and we in fact counter productive, they SHUT THE HELL UP, stayed off the OWF, and humbly sought out their antagonists elsewhere to work out agreeable terms.

And even then it took several months before peace of any kind was offered. Whereas NSO has been offered peace twice at least already.

My personal opinion, and one that can carry no real weight given I am no longer a member of Fark, but one that I feel will hold at least kernels of accuracy, is this: Were NSO to cease making libelous proclamations on the OWF, were their members to cease finding any excuse to deride or antagonize or insult Fark members or her allies, and were they willing to actually sit at the table and compromise rather than simply toss offering back in Fark's face with a "up yours, give me better," they would VERY quickly see much fairer offers coming across the table. One's conduct towards others directly effects others' conduct back.
[/quote]

Yes. We did hash it out reasonably and move on. But that's us. NSO feels that Fark has been unreasonable with them since the beginning. Fark seems to feel the same way about NSO. NSO is a belligerent, rude, combative, and pedantic alliance. They always have been and always will be. That they continue to act like themselves during a war is no reason to refuse to grant them white peace. If they were a quiet, go with the flow type of alliance who behaved belligerently during a war, that's one thing. They're not though. They are conducting themselves as they always have. They are steadfastly true to themselves and their beliefs. They believe they deserve the same white peace granted to some other alliances. I still don't understand why that can't happen.

It's not a matter of "Up yours, give me better." It's a matter of "We entered this war in defense of allies, citing treaty obligations to do so, and we will not be punished for that. White peace."

Edited February 24, 2010 by pezstar

[Jgoods45]

Best of luck to both parties. =)

[CaptainImpavid]

[quote name='Branimir' date='24 February 2010 - 01:30 PM' timestamp='1267036442' post='2201753']
And yours are quite clear by pushing for a humiliating peace terms for NSO.

Just man up to it and go about your business. Do not waste our collective time. And about NSO lying about the peace terms being offered or not-- I leave that to NSO for response as they already did.
[/quote]

Please explain once again how something is humiliating when both parties will be doing the same thing. Or are you saying a beer review is more humiliating than a health food one? Would wine be better, or West Virginia ditch liquor?

Is it that Fark was the only one posting a health food review? If so I will one up it, I'll offer a health food RECIPE in addition to whatever else is eventually agreed upon by other parties.

/of course I make no qualifications of whether it will be GOOD or BAD health...
//also, Branimir, if you reply again without addressing any of my points and simply reiterating your own schlock again and again, don't be offended if I don't respond. It is just that I find that kind of "arguing" to be a waste of my time. But hey, in your mind if you get the last word you win, so, cheers!

[Electron Sponge]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='24 February 2010 - 06:29 PM' timestamp='1267036381' post='2201751']
You mean the side that supports tech raiding alliances, the side that you directly threatened and almost came to confrontation with a few months ago, and the side which backed up \m/ and not you at the start of this war?
[/quote]
The side that stood with Polaris in its second-greatest moment of peril? Yeppers. The side that doesn't include TOP? Dig it man. You should know very well that in terms of the historical dialectic, Polaris is right where it should be right now.
[quote name='Wad of Lint' date='24 February 2010 - 06:40 PM' timestamp='1267037049' post='2201773']
That said, we have historically been treated very well which allowed us to hold out some hope over the past few weeks. Unfortunately we were continuously let down which has led us to make this difficult and unfortunate decision. I can only hope that as the months progress we [NpO and NSO] can both reach a strong level of respect once again.
[/quote]
Quite honestly if you're looking for a strong level of respect going forward, dropping drama bombs like the OP isn't going to facilitate that. Any sane person expecting a positive result from something like this is living in a fantasy world. I don't doubt that given effort from both sides to repair the relationship that things will improve. It will take bilateral effort, though. Whether or not it is worth that effort is a decision best left to the leaders and is not for me to comment on in this particular forum.

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='24 February 2010 - 06:44 PM' timestamp='1267037297' post='2201779']
This is true to some extent, but tech raiding alliances is so bad that Polar started a war over it. It's very hard to credit the side that recently did exactly that – exactly the one thing that Polar has found so heinous as to ignore the treaty web and start a war – being ideologically aligned with Polar. I don't agree that C&G 'who supported \m/ only did so out of obligation rather than true desire' either ... I think you must not have been reading these boards in the days after Polar declared.
[/quote]
Bob these one-off statements about how that war was about tech raiding can at best be called 'intentionally misleading'. I know you're pretty well informed so I highly doubt you could say something so factually incorrect without intending to do so. Also, you and I both know how any disagreement between alliances plays out when you involve the entire rank and file of those alliances as well as a peanut gallery of thousands. Turds get tossed.

[CaptainImpavid]

[quote name='pezstar' date='24 February 2010 - 01:50 PM' timestamp='1267037636' post='2201795']
Yes. We did hash it out reasonably and move on. But that's us. NSO feels that Fark has been unreasonable with them since the beginning. Fark seems to feel the same way about NSO. NSO is a belligerent, rude, combative, and pedantic alliance. They always have been and always will be. That they continue to act like themselves during a war is no reason to refuse to grant them white peace. If they were a quiet, go with the flow type of alliance who behaved belligerently during a war, that's one thing. They're not though. They are conducting themselves as they always have. They are steadfastly true to themselves and their beliefs. They believe they deserve the same white peace granted to some other alliances. I still don't understand why that can't happen.

It's not a matter of "Up yours, give me better." It's a matter of "We entered this war in defense of allies, citing treaty obligations to do so, and we will not be punished for that. White peace."
[/quote]


Yeah but the problem with that is that saying "hey, we're not just being jerks NOW, we're ALWAYS jerks, treat us nice" doesn't really fly because, regardless of why or for how long, they're still being jerks. You don't deserve to be treated the same as a more respectable alliance just because you have a HISTORY of being objectionable.

As said earlier, all of Fark's other opponents had to do a beer review, so how is NSO being treated any differently? As far as I can tell NSO wasn't being treated differently at all until they started demanding NOT to be treated differently.

[Rocky Horror]

[quote name='heggo' date='24 February 2010 - 10:32 AM' timestamp='1267029356' post='2201538']
I'll explain why the beer reviews are an issue to us through analogy. Suppose your friend Polar invites you to a party, and once you get there they drug you for some reason and you wake up a couple hours later surrounded by ten guys who are trying to beat you to death. Imagine that this one guy from the group, we'll call him Fark, says "Hey, I won't rape you if you give me a blowjob." When we tell him to shove off and insist on neither happening, is it fair of that guy -- yes: THAT guy, we'll call him mushroom judging from this thread -- to come by and say "Whelp NSO, if you get raped its your own fault now!" and say other such irritating things?
[/quote]If [action] then [consequence].

I suppose "¬blowjobs" and "rape" fit into that template as well as, for example "joining the army" and "death", "jumping off a low bridge" and "breaking your ankles" or anything else in the world.

Other than the fact it's a completely different set of circumstances, but that wouldn't fit your tightly constructed little narrative.

[pezstar]

[quote name='CaptainImpavid' date='24 February 2010 - 02:01 PM' timestamp='1267038326' post='2201809']
Yeah but the problem with that is that saying "hey, we're not just being jerks NOW, we're ALWAYS jerks, treat us nice" doesn't really fly because, regardless of why or for how long, they're still being jerks. You don't deserve to be treated the same as a more respectable alliance just because you have a HISTORY of being objectionable.

As said earlier, all of Fark's other opponents had to do a beer review, so how is NSO being treated any differently? As far as I can tell NSO wasn't being treated differently at all until they started demanding NOT to be treated differently.
[/quote]

No. All of Fark's other opponents did not have to do a beer review. NSO is not asking to be treated nicely. Their requests now are the exact same as they were at the conclusion of the Npo-\m/ conflict... they simply want white peace.

[KagetheSecond]

[quote name='Rocky Horror' date='24 February 2010 - 11:02 AM' timestamp='1267038330' post='2201810']


Other than the fact it's a completely different set of circumstances, but that wouldn't fit your tightly constructed little narrative.
[/quote]

Something wouldn't be "tightly constructed" after the original scenario played out

[Wad of Lint]

[quote name='Electron Sponge' date='24 February 2010 - 01:56 PM' timestamp='1267038029' post='2201805']
Quite honestly if you're looking for a strong level of respect going forward, dropping drama bombs like the OP isn't going to facilitate that. Any sane person expecting a positive result from something like this is living in a fantasy world. I don't doubt that given effort from both sides to repair the relationship that things will improve. It will take bilateral effort, though. Whether or not it is worth that effort is a decision best left to the leaders and is not for me to comment on in this particular forum.
[/quote]

I do not disagree. Unfortunately considering the hidden nature of NpO's withdrawal it was necessary in order to clarify our reasons for cancellation. Frankly, and I think my alliance will agree, I am tired of the secret diplomacy throughout this conflict that seems to be the causation of so many of our problems. They are what they are, there's no reason to try to cover them up in this instance.

Edited February 24, 2010 by Wad of Lint

[CaptainImpavid]

[quote name='pezstar' date='24 February 2010 - 02:03 PM' timestamp='1267038449' post='2201813']
No. All of Fark's other opponents did not have to do a beer review. NSO is not asking to be treated nicely. Their requests now are the exact same as they were at the conclusion of the Npo-\m/ conflict... they simply want white peace.
[/quote]


I will reword, MOST had to, and therefore NSO isn't being treated "differently."
[url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=81565"]only one I could find on short-attention-span notice.[/url]

You may not agree with Fark's requests, but they aren't doing it out of spite and they aren't being totally unreasonable.

[Branimir]

[quote name='CaptainImpavid' date='24 February 2010 - 07:56 PM' timestamp='1267038014' post='2201804']Please explain once again how something is humiliating when both parties will be doing the same thing. [/quote]
Already explained in my previous post. But you do not read.

NSO considers it to be humiliating for them, thus, forcing them to do it is forcing them to make an act of humiliation by their standards. If, as you said, you do not seek their humiliation and the term in your eyes is anyway just playful fun and nothing crucial, then dropping it isn't a problem, is it?

If, you do not care how they see the term and only want to have it your way (victors prerogative, nothing inherently wrong with that) then do not try to sell the story you are trying here, wasting our collective time. Also something I already said to you, but you do not read.
[quote name='CaptainImpavid' date='24 February 2010 - 07:56 PM' timestamp='1267038014' post='2201804']//also, Branimir, if you reply again without addressing any of my points and simply reiterating your own schlock again and again, don't be offended if I don't respond. It is just that I find that kind of "arguing" to be a waste of my time. But hey, in your mind if you get the last word you win, so, cheers!
[/quote]
Just because you say it, doesn't make it so. I can not make up for the lack of your reading abilities or inherent silliness of your position. But I agree its a waste of time to argue with you. So, Ill stop.

edit: English fails me sometimes.

Edited February 24, 2010 by Branimir