The New Grämlins

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Dathtoal' date='08 May 2010 - 11:01 PM' timestamp='1273374071' post='2292013']
Anyone with working synapses knows what unconditional surrender means, except you and your government. You guys are done. Enjoy the ride.
[/quote]
Actually, I'm pretty sure his government does know what it means.

[Matt Miller]

[quote name='Haflinger' date='08 May 2010 - 11:21 PM' timestamp='1273375301' post='2292049']
Actually, I'm pretty sure his government does know what it means.
[/quote]
The most ironic and pathetic thing in all this is that MatthewPK doesn't really know anything about which he speaks. He's said many times in this thread that he's not fully up to speed given his position within Gramlins. Yet here he is with 30 posts per day defending the indefensible. At this point the only difference between him and Johnnie Cochran is that one of them was a winner.

Edited May 9, 2010 by Matt Miller

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Matt Miller' date='08 May 2010 - 08:26 PM' timestamp='1273375555' post='2292055']
The most ironic and pathetic thing in all this is that MatthewPK doesn't really know anything about which he speaks. He's said many times in this thread that he's not fully up to speed given his position within Gramlins. Yet here he is with 30 posts per day defending the indefensible. At this point the only difference between him and Johnnie Cochran is that one of them was a winner.
[/quote]


Categorically false.
I have opposed misinformation about what has been said, what is meant by terms, and just plain nonsense about how you are "defenseless"

I do not specifically know what the terms are; that doesn't mean I don't know what the process of surrender implies nor does it invalidate my logical progression of what happens if you won't comply with terms.

Nonetheless, you've made it clear that what we intend is irrelevant because we're not strong enough to encourage you to do it.
So don't waste your keystrokes trying to disprove my points because you're not up to the task of understanding nor are you interested in discussing.

For those who actually want to know reality versus pervasive OWF speculation; I'm answering your questions.

Matt Miller; your offer of white peace is not acceptable to me. If that means continued war then so be it.
This is not a negotiation. I will not compromise with you, even when facing Armageddon.
IRON is clearly culpable for their wrongdoings; this is irrefutable.
Perhaps I cannot force you to acknowledge that and submit to allocution and restitution; but might does not make right.
The choice is yours to turn yourself in for what you have done; do not complain to me that Gremlins are keeping you in an eternal war.
You do not deserve to negotiate the terms of your surrender as if this war was ended between moral equals.

[Matt Miller]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='08 May 2010 - 11:38 PM' timestamp='1273376301' post='2292082']
Categorically false.
I have opposed misinformation about what has been said, what is meant by terms, and just plain nonsense about how you are "defenseless"

I do not specifically know what the terms are; that doesn't mean I don't know what the process of surrender implies nor does it invalidate my logical progression of what happens if you won't comply with terms.

Nonetheless, you've made it clear that what we intend is irrelevant because we're not strong enough to encourage you to do it.
So don't waste your keystrokes trying to disprove my points because you're not up to the task of understanding nor are you interested in discussing.

For those who actually want to know reality versus pervasive OWF speculation; I'm answering your questions.

Matt Miller; your offer of white peace is not acceptable to me. If that means continued war then so be it.
This is not a negotiation. I will not compromise with you, even when facing Armageddon.
IRON is clearly culpable for their wrongdoings; this is irrefutable.
Perhaps I cannot force you to acknowledge that and submit to allocution and restitution; but might does not make right.
The choice is yours to turn yourself in for what you have done; do not complain to me that Gremlins are keeping you in an eternal war.
You do not deserve to negotiate the terms of your surrender as if this war was ended between moral equals.
[/quote]
Once again on the high horse I see. You act as if you have the right to judge us, when in fact you do not. The alliances whom we wronged (oh my Admin was that some sort of acknowledgment of culpability?) were sufficiently satisfied with the resolution back on Easter Sunday. You have no right to demand anything further, this is plain to see. May I ask, what in your mind gives you the right to act as you are?

[Louisa]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='09 May 2010 - 03:41 AM' timestamp='1273372881' post='2291993']
Thus far I have explained:
[/quote]
Sir, I am formally charging you with casuistry and sophistry, and since we are in the habit of quoting our references, mine are wiktionary (since I am too tired to find another).

I will be expecting your plea within 12 standard hours.

[Horatio Longworth]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='08 May 2010 - 11:13 PM' timestamp='1273374800' post='2292031']
A...you seem to think it means "they become your slave and do whatever you say."

When in reality, it means "surrender without conditions"

[/quote]
I've tried to read as many pages of this thread as I can, but let me try to use what sense I have to clarify things.

The issue everyone has with these statements is that, where [i]you[/i] think this is a debate over definitions, everyone else sees these two statements to be a tautology.

Am I incorrect?

[bigwoody]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='08 May 2010 - 10:38 PM' timestamp='1273376301' post='2292082']
Matt Miller; your offer of white peace is not acceptable to me. If that means continued war then so be it.
[/quote]
Its either white peace or YOU surrendering. Don't you get it? You literally snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

There have been many, many blunders in the history of this world. Your alliance may have perpetrated the biggest one of all time.

[Horatio Longworth]

[quote name='bigwoody' date='09 May 2010 - 01:26 AM' timestamp='1273382752' post='2292217']
Its either white peace or YOU surrendering. Don't you get it? You literally snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

There have been many, many blunders in the history of this world. Your alliance may have perpetrated the biggest one of all time.
[/quote]
This sums up my perceptions of this entire situation.

[Nizzle]

Every time a Gremlin tries to explain why unconditional surrender doesn't mean what you think it means an Angel gets it's wings.

Lots of angels these days.

[bigwoody]

[quote name='Nizzle' date='09 May 2010 - 01:43 AM' timestamp='1273387384' post='2292264']
Every time a Gremlin tries to explain why unconditional surrender doesn't mean what you think it means an Angel gets it's wings.

Lots of angels these days.
[/quote]
I think it is moot. They're not getting unconditional surrender, no matter how they define it. They're not getting any surrender anymore.

If they don't take white peace, they're going to join the short list of alliances that have surrendered from the winning side of a war.

[Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='09 May 2010 - 02:38 PM' timestamp='1273376301' post='2292082']
Snip
[/quote]
Hello there, I see you've been quite busy answering lots of other questions in this thread but not mine

Any chance you could have a crack at it? Ta.

[url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=83465&view=findpost&p=2289571"]http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=83465&view=findpost&p=2289571[/url]

Edited May 9, 2010 by Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz

[shilo]

[quote name='Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz' date='09 May 2010 - 11:14 AM' timestamp='1273392828' post='2292319']
Hello there, I see you've been quite busy answering lots of other questions in this thread but not mine

Any chance you could have a crack at it? Ta.

[url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=83465&view=findpost&p=2289571"]My linhttp://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=83465&view=findpost&p=2289571k[/url]
[/quote]
You forget gRAMlins were involved in the surrender talks from day one (even though of course Mathew who wasn't there tells you they weren't). After everyone except the gRAMlins had agreed on terms, for over one week has it been tried to get them back to their senses, and because it failed the ESA actually became the ESA with gRAMlins being left by themselves to commit slow collective suicide.
I am very sure had they said that they want an admission of guild/culpability in the accords, they would have gotten it. Believe me, this would never have been the issue anyways, since our group offered such an apology on our own early in during the peace talks.

Your questions are logical, and by the methods of rational diplomacy, an interesting idea to look for compromise.

But look at Mathew, he is still on his perceived moral high horse, while demanding the worst surrender terms in CN history, and then attempts in countless intellectually non-stimulating ways to redefine clearly defined words by saying we are just stating different opinions than his own regarding the definition
He "wants" us to surrender without conditions (but hey, that's not unconditional surrender ) because he cannot force us to, at the same time while realizes forcing us doesn't work, he also refuses diplomatic dialogue because we are considered criminal by him.
They have lost a third of their membership, half their total NS, and they still are not even realizing their position.
Rather than accepting the consequences, Mathew is working hard on setting the stage for his alliance to be the failed but noble martyrs for a good cause, misunderstood, but well intentioned.

You honestly think this is a group that can be approached with conservative diplomatic attempts with a rationale base?

[Broncos98]

For the first time in my CN history I actually want to see an alliance totally disbanded...godspeed Gramlins.

[Matt Miller]

[quote name='Broncos98' date='09 May 2010 - 10:16 AM' timestamp='1273414566' post='2292443']
For the first time in my CN history I actually want to see an alliance totally disbanded...godspeed Gramlins.
[/quote]
Careful, you'll give MatthewPK his next sound byte. After he's done with it, it will look like IRON set this whole thing up and planted the lunatics within Gramlins just so we could disband them.

[SpacingOutMan]

[quote name='Matt Miller' date='09 May 2010 - 11:19 AM' timestamp='1273418337' post='2292484']
Careful, you'll give MatthewPK his next sound byte. After he's done with it, it will look like IRON set this whole thing up and planted the lunatics within Gramlins just so we could disband them.
[/quote]

Oh damn, are you telling me that [i]isn't[/i] the case? Man, I guess I need a new reason to hate IRON. It just seemed... to easy this time.

And I'm surprised this thread is still alive.

[Broncos98]

[quote name='Matt Miller' date='09 May 2010 - 10:19 AM' timestamp='1273418337' post='2292484']
Careful, you'll give MatthewPK his next sound byte. After he's done with it, it will look like IRON set this whole thing up and planted the lunatics within Gramlins just so we could disband them.
[/quote]

I can't believe you just posted our sekret plans on the OWF...

Careful now, I didn't say I wanted IRON to disband them, just that they break apart one nation at a time and bleed a painful death, thus disbanding by suicide. This event will serve as yet another history lesson on what not to do with your CN alliance when you have the keys.

[KingEd]

[quote name='SpacingOutMan' date='09 May 2010 - 04:22 PM' timestamp='1273418529' post='2292485']


And I'm surprised this thread is still alive.
[/quote]

It goes to show how upset the community is about Gremlins actions...

[SpacingOutMan]

[quote name='KingEd' date='09 May 2010 - 12:16 PM' timestamp='1273421783' post='2292526']
It goes to show how upset the community is about Gremlins actions...
[/quote]

No, it goes to show how much of an idiot Ramrius is, and how much people like to whine, really. Other than a few dozen posts out of this rather expansive thread, it has been all whining and no action. Really, if you are that appalled by Gramlins, then step in and do something about it. If it offends you [i]that[/i] much, then it would be worth the moral victory despite being attacked (again) by those imposing the 'no entry' clauses.

I, in no way, support Gramlins, but seriously, stop the posturing. Nut up or shut up [OOC: Great movie line].

[shilo]

[quote name='Matt Miller' date='09 May 2010 - 06:19 PM' timestamp='1273418337' post='2292484']
Careful, you'll give MatthewPK his next sound byte. After he's done with it, it will look like IRON set this whole thing up and planted the lunatics within Gramlins just so we could disband them.
[/quote]
It just goes to show why Mathew was ultimately always right in calling us criminal. Not even I want to talk with us anymore. Disgusting.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='SpacingOutMan' date='09 May 2010 - 11:23 AM' timestamp='1273422172' post='2292531']
No, it goes to show how much of an idiot Ramrius is, and how much people like to whine, really. Other than a few dozen posts out of this rather expansive thread, it has been all whining and no action. Really, if you are that appalled by Gramlins, then step in and do something about it. If it offends you [i]that[/i] much, then it would be worth the moral victory despite being attacked (again) by those imposing the 'no entry' clauses.

I, in no way, support Gramlins, but seriously, stop the posturing. Nut up or shut up [OOC: Great movie line].
[/quote]

i have to agree with this statement. i have heard several people state they would do something about this but yada yada yada, excuse after excuse and so on and so forth. most want to run their mouth but not actually step up to do something other than continue to run their mouth.

[Gamemaster1]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='09 May 2010 - 01:02 PM' timestamp='1273424546' post='2292550']
i have to agree with this statement. i have heard several people state they would do something about this but yada yada yada, excuse after excuse and so on and so forth. most want to run their mouth but not actually step up to do something other than continue to run their mouth.
[/quote]
For your actions, we commend you. The strength of character by which you act.

[i]Acta non verba.[/i]

[shilo]

Indeed, and we're proud he is fighting side by side with us against the nutjobs.

[Aeternos Astramora]

[quote name='SpacingOutMan' date='09 May 2010 - 11:23 AM' timestamp='1273422172' post='2292531']No, it goes to show how much of an idiot Ramrius is, and how much people like to whine, really. Other than a few dozen posts out of this rather expansive thread, it has been all whining and no action. Really, if you are that appalled by Gramlins, then step in and do something about it. [/quote]
Surrender terms.

[quote]If it offends you [i]that[/i] much, then it would be worth the moral victory despite being attacked (again) by those imposing the 'no entry' clauses.[/quote]
How could anybody help IRON when they're getting re-crushed by SG?

Edited May 9, 2010 by Aeternos Astramora

[SpacingOutMan]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='09 May 2010 - 01:02 PM' timestamp='1273424546' post='2292550']
i have to agree with this statement. i have heard several people state they would do something about this but yada yada yada, excuse after excuse and so on and so forth. most want to run their mouth but not actually step up to do something other than continue to run their mouth.
[/quote]

Aye, but granted this war isn't any different than most, save for it actually not being rateable to any other war. In fact, interesting enough, Gramlins are taking more damage, so really, the aggressor (or 'curb-stomper') is getting smacked in the face, which in small scales such as this scenario, is unheard of. It's interesting that this war began and ended with small-scale conflict (small-scale referring to number of alliances, naturally).

However, other than that tidbit of uniqueness, people will always spout how much they hate one side and then sit on the sideline licking a lollipop. To be fair, I don't really care much for IRON, but I don't really know DAWN or TORN all that well. Likewise, although Gramlins was on the same side as CSN in the last war, I find what they are doing to be rather abhorrent. But if I really found it to be [i]that[/i] abhorrent, or if I [i]really[/i] disliked IRON, I would have probably defected CSN to join either IRON or Gramlins if either case were true.

Honestly, [OOC: we are talking about pixels here] people. Heaven forbid you leave your respective alliance for a bit if it offends you that much and fight for your own self-moral cause. Because as you talk more and more, and take less and less action, all credibility goes out the window and you begin to look like a shark without teeth.

[Lord Fingolfin]

I'll second that nut up or shut up bit. Rebuilt to a level high enough to take on some Gramlins, ready to kick some $@!. Any of the posturers care to follow my lead?