The Future of Neo-Hegemony ?

[Delta1212]

Did you just ignore the rest of the post where I explained grammatically how that sentence can mean either interpretation exactly as written?

[Lord Curzon]

[quote name='Haflinger' date='14 March 2010 - 06:42 PM' timestamp='1268606844' post='2225716']
Apparently nobody saw the word "they". However that doesn't really matter all that much, as I made the quoted post something like a day and a half after identifying the source (well in vague terms, admittedly).
[/quote]

Wait... you identified a source!?! I missed that. For clarity's sake, what treaty are you talking about.

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Delta1212' date='14 March 2010 - 07:36 PM' timestamp='1268610084' post='2225750']
Did you just ignore the rest of the post where I explained grammatically how that sentence can mean either interpretation exactly as written?
[/quote]
No, I explained why it can't be due to my use of the word "they".

[quote name='Lord Curzon' date='14 March 2010 - 09:01 PM' timestamp='1268615202' post='2225843']
Wait... you identified a source!?! I missed that. For clarity's sake, what treaty are you talking about.
[/quote]
I'm not going to identify which treaty I'm talking about, as doing so would violate a trust. I don't reveal my sources.

[Neo Uruk]

[quote name='Haflinger' date='14 March 2010 - 09:11 PM' timestamp='1268619385' post='2225910']
I'm not going to identify which treaty I'm talking about, as doing so would violate a trust. I don't reveal my sources.
[/quote]
[quote name='Haflinger' date='14 March 2010 - 05:42 PM' timestamp='1268606844' post='2225716']
after identifying the source (well in vague terms, admittedly).
[/quote]
Pick one. Hopefully the first since you did it so vaguely not even CnG knows what the hell you're talking about.

[Farnsworth]

Prior comments suggesting the erroneous use of "neo-hegemony" are absolutely correct.

If "hegemony" is to remain a portion of their name then it needs the qualification of "old," "displaced," "ex" or "former."

Most realistic plan for the ex-Hegemony: Grin and bear it until the actual "neo-hegemony" amass enough enemies to eventually be overthrown, as they did with you.

Rinse, wash, repeat.

Edited March 15, 2010 by Farnsworth

[Lord Curzon]

[quote name='Haflinger' date='14 March 2010 - 10:11 PM' timestamp='1268619385' post='2225910']
I'm not going to identify which treaty I'm talking about, as doing so would violate a trust. I don't reveal my sources.
[/quote]

I'm so freaking confused.

[rsoxbronco1]

[quote name='Lord Curzon' date='15 March 2010 - 12:22 AM' timestamp='1268627247' post='2226032']
I'm so freaking confused.
[/quote]
I don't know why...

Someone from a C&G alliance went to someone in another alliance. That other alliance assumedly has a treaty with Invicta. The somebody from the C&G alliance tried to get the somebody in the other alliance to cancel their treaty with Invicta. So clearly, the C&G somebody is a terrible person and if we ever find out who they are we should ZI them.

Using my super sleuth skills, I expect this is with regards to IAA, who, for a while, shared a MDP style treaty with both Athens (C&G) and Invicta. Although I think ODN shared an ally or two with Invicta for a while, they're a recent addition to C&G so it's less likely. Besides, I'd rather talk about Athens than the Optional Defense Network.

tah dah?

[Lord Curzon]

[quote name='rsoxbronco1' date='15 March 2010 - 12:31 AM' timestamp='1268627835' post='2226041']
I don't know why...

Someone from a C&G alliance went to someone in another alliance. That other alliance assumedly has a treaty with Invicta. The somebody from the C&G alliance tried to get the somebody in the other alliance to cancel their treaty with Invicta. So clearly, the C&G somebody is a terrible person and if we ever find out who they are we should ZI them.

Using my super sleuth skills, I expect this is with regards to IAA, who, for a while, shared a MDP style treaty with both Athens (C&G) and Invicta. Although I think ODN shared an ally or two with Invicta for a while, they're a recent addition to C&G so it's less likely. Besides, I'd rather talk about Athens than the Optional Defense Network.

tah dah?
[/quote]

See I was with you until this ....

[quote name='Haflinger' date='13 March 2010 - 09:18 PM' timestamp='1268529839' post='2224900']
It's true that C&G pressure had no effect on that treaty.
[/quote]
referring to the IAA treaty. Was that sarcasm? I don't even...

Also, you have super sleuth skillz.

[rsoxbronco1]

[quote name='Lord Curzon' date='15 March 2010 - 12:50 AM' timestamp='1268628951' post='2226057']
See I was with you until this ....


referring to the IAA treaty. Was that sarcasm? I don't even...

Also, you have super sleuth skillz.
[/quote]
If he's not refering to the IAA treaty, I have absolutely no clue what he's talking about. What did we do that had no effect but he felt so strongly about that he brought it up in public?

basically this conversation is

[Lord Curzon]

[quote name='rsoxbronco1' date='15 March 2010 - 01:11 AM' timestamp='1268630229' post='2226077']
basically this conversation is
[/quote]

Can't disagree with that

[Delta1212]

[quote name='Haflinger' date='14 March 2010 - 10:11 PM' timestamp='1268619385' post='2225910']
No, I explained why it can't be due to my use of the word "they".
[/quote]
So... you did. Because the sentence, with the word they in it, can be read either way depending on whether you put "they" within the first clause or outside of it. If the post is read: Errr, it wasn't hearsay. Hearsay would be if [i]they were saying "I heard C&G went and talked to someone else."[/i] It was [i]"C&G came and talked to me."[/i], where the two potential options are italicized, then you have either:


The phrase "they were saying 'I heard C&G went and talked to someone else.'" is true or the phrase "'C&G came and talked to me.'" is. This does not include "they" saying anything in the second option.

Obviously, you meant it to be read: if they were saying [i]"I heard C&G went and talked to someone else."[/i] It was [i]"C&G came and talked to me."[/i] which places "they were saying" as a qualifier for both options rather than an inclusion in one.

Unfortunately, the fact that "they were saying" would normally be followed by a clause in quotes regardless of circumstances and the fact that you used the always ambiguous "It" to introduce the second option rather than something that has a clearer reference means that the sentence can be read with either meaning and most people didn't see the one you intended to convey.

[Lord Curzon]

[quote name='Delta1212' date='15 March 2010 - 01:42 AM' timestamp='1268632086' post='2226100']
So... you did. Because the sentence, with the word they in it, can be read either way depending on whether you put "they" within the first clause or outside of it. If the post is read: Errr, it wasn't hearsay. Hearsay would be if [i]they were saying "I heard C&G went and talked to someone else."[/i] It was [i]"C&G came and talked to me."[/i], where the two potential options are italicized, then you have either:


The phrase "they were saying 'I heard C&G went and talked to someone else.'" is true or the phrase "'C&G came and talked to me.'" is. This does not include "they" saying anything in the second option.

Obviously, you meant it to be read: if they were saying [i]"I heard C&G went and talked to someone else."[/i] It was [i]"C&G came and talked to me."[/i] which places "they were saying" as a qualifier for both options rather than an inclusion in one.

Unfortunately, the fact that "they were saying" would normally be followed by a clause in quotes regardless of circumstances and the fact that you used the always ambiguous "It" to introduce the second option rather than something that has a clearer reference means that the sentence can be read with either meaning and most people didn't see the one you intended to convey.
[/quote]

Show off

edit: for clarity I am kidding.

Edited March 15, 2010 by Lord Curzon

[Style #386]

[quote name='Haflinger' date='14 March 2010 - 07:41 AM' timestamp='1268570778' post='2225277']
Sadly, I've learnt from pretty hard experience that your word is worth about as much as Terry Howard's.
[/quote]
[yawn]

It's sad that the best you can do at this point is toss out blatant [i]ad hominems[/i] and provocative statements when somebody directly calls your bluff. Perhaps you should take a closer look at your own credibility, Haflinger.

While your at it, you might want to try to back up your earlier claim. Of course, pithy OOC references work as well.

Edited March 15, 2010 by Style #386

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Style #386' date='15 March 2010 - 02:10 AM' timestamp='1268633769' post='2226120']
[yawn]

It's sad that the best you can do at this point is toss out blatant [i]ad hominems[/i] and provocative statements when somebody directly calls your bluff. Perhaps you should take a closer look at your own credibility, Haflinger.
[/quote]
You really ought to know better than this. Don't tempt me.

[quote name='Style #386' date='15 March 2010 - 02:10 AM' timestamp='1268633769' post='2226120']
While your at it, you might want to try to back up your earlier claim. Of course, pithy OOC references work as well.
[/quote]
OOC? Where have I made any OOC statements in this entire thread?

[bigwoody]

[quote name='Haflinger' date='14 March 2010 - 09:11 PM' timestamp='1268619385' post='2225910']
No, I explained why it can't be due to my use of the word "they".


I'm not going to identify which treaty I'm talking about, as doing so would violate a trust. I don't reveal my sources.
[/quote]
You know, I don't put CnG beyond doing this, especially a select few of its leaders. If someone came to me with logs saying "check out what CnG is up to" I would buy it.

However, you have a history of taking someone else's hand-fed talking points, and presenting them like insider info, so you have to understand why your word alone is so...unconvincing.

[kriekfreak]

[quote name='bigwoody' date='15 March 2010 - 02:49 PM' timestamp='1268664881' post='2226298']
You know, I don't put CnG beyond doing this, especially a select few of its leaders. If someone came to me with logs saying "check out what CnG is up to" I would buy it.

However, you have a history of taking someone else's hand-fed talking points, and presenting them like insider info, so you have to understand why your word alone is so...unconvincing.
[/quote]

Indeed. This is not the first time Haf twist the facts in order to get to higher grounds.

[rsoxbronco1]

[quote name='Haflinger' date='15 March 2010 - 08:25 AM' timestamp='1268656263' post='2226242']
Don't tempt me.
[/quote]
Argumentum ad baculum :colbert:

(Shout out to the MK Poll of the Day and Cata for giving me a refresher on logical fallacies!)

[Style #386]

[quote name='Haflinger' date='15 March 2010 - 07:25 AM' timestamp='1268656263' post='2226242']
You really ought to know better than this. Don't tempt me.


OOC? Where have I made any OOC statements in this entire thread?
[/quote]
I mistook the Terry Howard line, then.

That said, consider yourself tempted.

[Jack Diorno]

Invicta bullies the governments of other alliances, they force many alliances to stop pursuing treaties with their friends in C&G and becoming connected with the world. Leaving them as outcasts that will always end up on the wrong side of the MDP web when a conflict arises.

If you disagree with me then you are pretty much just another 'Terry Howard' or 'RyanGDI'.

[WorkingClassRuler]

[quote name='Jack Diorno' date='16 March 2010 - 07:07 AM' timestamp='1268683986' post='2226482']
Invicta bullies the governments of other alliances, they force many alliances to stop pursuing treaties with their friends in C&G and becoming connected with the world. Leaving them as outcasts that will always end up on the wrong side of the MDP web when a conflict arises.

If you disagree with me then you are pretty much just another 'Terry Howard' or 'RyanGDI'.
[/quote]

Don't forget to make vaguely threatening statements if anyone dares to question this.

[zzzptm]

Is it possible that an alliance canceled on Invicta because it was tired of Haflinger?

Just asking.

Anyway... NPO is the #2 alliance by mass and volume. Once out from under terms, they'll be capable of moving and shaking in ways that could shake up all sorts of happy little scenarios.

[Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz]

[quote name='zzzptm' date='17 March 2010 - 09:29 AM' timestamp='1268782490' post='2227751']
Is it possible that an alliance canceled on Invicta because it was tired of Haflinger?

Just asking.

Anyway... NPO is the #2 alliance by mass and volume. Once out from under terms, they'll be capable of moving and shaking in ways that could shake up all sorts of happy little scenarios.
[/quote]
Not with bugger all tech, they're not.

I was just taking a look at UE's bloc stats and the weight of numbers that would be brought against them if they did try anything on would be phenomenal.

[Qaianna]

[quote name='Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz' date='16 March 2010 - 07:14 PM' timestamp='1268785188' post='2227792']
Not with bugger all tech, they're not.

I was just taking a look at UE's bloc stats and the weight of numbers that would be brought against them if they did try anything on would be phenomenal.
[/quote]

I would be very, very surprised if they're not making subtle arrangements to rectify that as soon as possible. After all, what else are they going to do on the world stage at the moment? (Aside from chew some scenery..) And even if not, cash isn't always a bad thing to have on hand. As well as experience. And discipline--the Order may be weak, but I'm not gonna call it insignificant anytime soon.

Again, tho, I think one really interesting avenue would be if the former Hegemony were carved up or tempted away from each other. Any ideas of how this would go, or who would go where? If I give you the Multicolour Cross-X Alliance, will that get me a draft pick next war? (Wait a minute..)

[Amossio]

I see no mention of the strongest bloc in the game NOIR, people should approach NOIR bloc treaty members, we're the best

[flak attack]

[quote name='rsoxbronco1' date='15 March 2010 - 02:07 PM' timestamp='1268676766' post='2226396']
(Shout out to the MK Poll of the Day and Cata for giving me a refresher on logical fallacies!)
[/quote]
MK: bringing back intelligent discussion since March 2010.