Jump to content

The New Grämlins


Iotupa

Recommended Posts

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='09 June 2010 - 08:48 AM' timestamp='1276055319' post='2329650']
If we presume your analysis is valid (which is a big if), I would like you to find in [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=83752&hl=%20easter%20%20sunday%20%20accords&st=0"]The ESA[/url] where IRON admitted they were wrong.
[/quote]

It was put on the table in one of the negotiations, on our initiative if I recall correctly, however it was'nt taken up. I'm sure Gramlins was up to date on all the negotiations and remained silent about that point for...~2 weeks when ESA was finally signed.

or are you saying you didnt get the logs? :smug: Oh well, paperless :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 5.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

[quote name='Cormalek' date='09 June 2010 - 02:02 AM' timestamp='1276063330' post='2329884']
Caligula aka IYIyTH's joined MHA at Thu Jun 26, 2008, and he's held numerous high tier gov positions. I wouldn't call him new blood.
[/quote]
I know who Myth is. If you remember, at the time he joined MHA I was in an alliance that held an MADP with NATO.

And yes, I would call him new blood. Much of what I would refer to as old guard MHA went in the formation of Argent, and the others have gradually dropped off over the years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='08 June 2010 - 10:48 PM' timestamp='1276055319' post='2329650']
I told you I knew them over 100 pages ago.

In fact, I think I spent scores of pages saying: Reading Comprehension.

If you don't know something, ask.
[/quote]

Last I heard you said that you could only speculate on the terms based on your codex and that you didn't know what the terms actually included. I realize that you have had elections since I've seen that post and you may now actually know the terms. I haven't seen every single post in this mammoth of a thread so if I missed it then I apologize.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='caligula' date='09 June 2010 - 02:31 AM' timestamp='1276043490' post='2329369']
I am trying to say that nothing is going to satisfy you.

We could do awesome bike tricks and cartwheels but we'd be criticized for poor form.
[/quote]


[quote name='Iamrecognized' date='09 June 2010 - 05:47 AM' timestamp='1276055253' post='2329646']
About what? Someone claimed that we were not sovereign alliances and not able to make our own decisions. That's just simply untrue, if you read the treaty. And that's all he was claiming. So what's the concrete point?
[/quote]


[quote name='Cormalek' date='09 June 2010 - 08:02 AM' timestamp='1276063330' post='2329884']
I'm pretty sure that Myth's post was made in wider context, and admittedly makes little sense for people not knowing what we have at mind (which seems to be main curse of all us Harmlins ;-) ).

As to the Harmlin accords thingie - admittedly, it was not written to elaborate rescinding/keeping of sovereignty, but rather to make us as close as possible, while adding some failsafe additions. Parts III and IV can be interpreted as losing sovereignty, while part V mentions precise policies and situations that show we do not lose it. I think we can agree to disagree here, as I can hardly see any arguments made by either side that would appease disputants (unless someone can prove me wrong, then please do, for I am bored (ooc:flu :) ).
[/quote]
My post was a direct response to the above post, which clearly said no matter what we do, it won't satisfy you. I then only said that playing the poor hated victim (which to me this sounds like) doesn't work because MHA doesn't really fit into the category.
As I said, if a discussion regarding the treaty is not desired, it sounds weak to rationalize this by saying you won't discuss it because people would just hate you anyways.

I did not discuss the treaty details, nor did I refer to them, since caligula already pulled a MPK by saying that only your interpretation has any merit. Since no one else then can have a opinion about this public document, attempts to discuss the details are futile, not to mention that the only argument of interest in the greater context of this thread is the end of this treaty, not the details on how you are or are not completely sovereign (my argument would be that any mandatory defense treaty takes away some sovereignty as price for protection, the situation here likely is no different).

The answer to this has been long since given, it ranges from "42" to "I won't say" to "we'll see when it comes to it" which boils down to "the treaty is done when gRAMlins finally die and other than that we like to keep things vague cause it's fun".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='caligula' date='08 June 2010 - 06:31 PM' timestamp='1276043490' post='2329369']
We could do awesome bike tricks and cartwheels but we'd be criticized for poor form.
[/quote]

IYIyTh, I would totally not criticize your form. But only if you posted a video of said tricks. :smug:


Also, as far as being old-guard MHA, There are still several around, just not as active as they once were. I'd consider IYIyTh on the cusp of being in that group, he just likes being contrary :wub:


Fact is, MHA and Fark are the only things keeping Gre alive today. If they stepped aside, this would be over in a few days. That's gospel truth, so let's just enjoy the transformation of a ferrari alliance into a yugo. We're almost done.

Edited by RustyNail
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='shilo' date='09 June 2010 - 04:30 PM' timestamp='1276093836' post='2330116']
My post was a direct response to the above post, which clearly said no matter what we do, it won't satisfy you. I then only said that playing the poor hated victim (which to me this sounds like) doesn't work because MHA doesn't really fit into the category.
As I said, if a discussion regarding the treaty is not desired, it sounds weak to rationalize this by saying you won't discuss it because people would just hate you anyways.

I did not discuss the treaty details, nor did I refer to them, since caligula already pulled a MPK by saying that only your interpretation has any merit. Since no one else then can have a opinion about this public document, attempts to discuss the details are futile, not to mention that the only argument of interest in the greater context of this thread is the end of this treaty, not the details on how you are or are not completely sovereign

(my argument would be that any mandatory defense treaty takes away some sovereignty as price for protection, the situation here likely is no different).[/quote]

Fair enough.
[size="1"](See? Satisfied! :D)[/size]

Frankly, I consider Accords to take away a lot of sovereignty, alas, not enough :P But what do I know, I wasn't here 3 years ago, so I can apparently join all non Harmlins in the You Can't Read The Public Document and Are Incapable of Understanding it (or - NAMBLA), eh Haflinger? ;-)
If I said we've made a bad argument, would you hold it against me? [img]http://forums.cybernations.net/public/style_emoticons/default/ehm.gif[/img]

Seriously though, Accords are as you might imagine a touchy subject for us, considering our stance to this part of conflict, and it makes us a bit jumpy [img]http://forums.cybernations.net/public/style_emoticons/default/frantic.gif[/img]
Let's set a safeword - if we get too defensive about Accords - you say MPK, and we'll take the gimp mask off.

[size="1"]-what? I'm the only one [i]wearing[/i] a gimp mask? Damn, do I feel silly now...


edit: frankly frankly too many "frankly".
[/size]

Edited by Cormalek
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uh ...

No one one has the right to denigrate anyone in or anything about our alliance because of when they joined.
Every member of the Mostly Harmless Alliance is an integral part, even the nutty ones.
The jibing and biased opinions are amusing to a point, but never insinuate the integrity of my alliance has somehow changed.
[b]Especially if you're not a member.[/b]

About Argent? It's been nearly two and a half years.
OOC: In this game's framework that is nearly an eternity.
I respect and have befriended a great deal if not all of those who left for Argent and was VERY much around for their departure, any insinuation that somehow our alliance "changed," in some dramatic way since then is false.

I was around to enjoy the company of Denzin, I studied under John Rocker, I worked against [i]and[/i] with WCR, I've even run against Shamshir in a Triumvirate race, and we remain close in the same alliance to this day. I've worked with several of the Gramlins as well, and just because we did our own thing at times does not mean I hold the accords any less lightly than any signatory, regardless of whether they're around or not, and I bet any one of those of MHA would say the same.

[b]As an alliance, we voted to approve the Accords, not as individuals.[/b]

"Old blood," or "New blood," it doesn't matter. I and every other Hitchhiker who's posted here is of the truest blood there is, and that is a member of the Mostly Harmless Alliance.
Because a member was not around three to four years ago gives no one the right to tell them they are any less of a member.


We come and go, and we're doing just fine on our own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Haflinger' date='09 June 2010 - 02:31 PM' timestamp='1276090301' post='2330083']
I know who Myth is. If you remember, at the time he joined MHA I was in an alliance that held an MADP with NATO.

And yes, I would call him new blood. Much of what I would refer to as old guard MHA went in the formation of Argent, and the others have gradually dropped off over the years.
[/quote]

I honestly facepalm at every post of yours i read here because they are all utter rubbish.

So you dont class being a member of an alliance fornearly 2 years as old guard. Doesn't mean we go by your standards now. Its also amusing how you as never being a member of either MHA or Gre decide to have fun at interpreting our treaties for us and try to e lawyer them on our behalf. Seriously get your nose out of things it doesn't belong in!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't bring us into this.

I'm not "old school" MHA anymore than I am "old school" None. I have been in Argent longer than either of those other 2 AAs I was once a part of. Most of us were gone before the Harmlins treaty was signed. We didn't vote on it and it's none of our affair in so much as the intepretation of it.

Our only tie to this is seeing a once great friend in the Gremlins reduced to the laughingstock of the world, and using another of our friends as their faux-moral cause. A friend that, sadly, surrender terms prevent us from assisting to end this farce much...much quicker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='TypoNinja' date='09 June 2010 - 12:48 PM' timestamp='1276048079' post='2329482']
Gre trying to take the moral high ground over IRON at this point is like a heroin addict telling a crack addict hes scum. You actually require a morally superior position to pass judgment on another and Gre has about as much standing to lecture somebody about poor conduct as a junkie does to lecture about drug habits, while the needle is still in his arm.
[/quote]
It's quite an amusing situation isn't it, especially if you consider Gre's former position as 'moral beacon of the world'. It's like if Nancy Reagan became a crackhead, and wandered the streets telling everyone else to just say no.

[quote=scutterbug]I honestly facepalm at every post of yours i read here because they are all utter rubbish.

So you dont class being a member of an alliance fornearly 2 years as old guard. Doesn't mean we go by your standards now. Its also amusing how you as never being a member of either MHA or Gre decide to have fun at interpreting our treaties for us and try to e lawyer them on our behalf. Seriously get your nose out of things it doesn't belong in![/quote]
That's funny, I do the same at your posts.

The term old guard doesn't really denote anything specific in this world, in the other world it is defined as a group that been present in an organisation for a long time and is unwilling to accept new ideas. In this world I tend to see it as denoting members that were present for the formative events in the alliances history, for the NPO that would be GPW.

And do you really think people aren't going to comment on MHA's actions and stance in this situation? It is quite an odd situation to see an alliance watch its other half engage in one of the most hilarious pieces of geopolitical comedy I have seen, and yet cannot make up its mind whether it supports it or not, with half the members saying it doesn't and the other half saying they'd consider rejoining the war if asked.

Edited by WorldConqueror
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='WorldConqueror' date='09 June 2010 - 07:28 PM' timestamp='1276108112' post='2330397']
It's quite an amusing situation isn't it, especially if you consider Gre's former position as 'moral beacon of the world'. It's like if Nancy Reagan became a crackhead, and wandered the streets telling everyone else to just say no.


That's funny, I do the same at your posts.

The term old guard doesn't really denote anything specific in this world, in the other world it is defined as a group that been present in an organisation for a long time and is unwilling to accept new ideas. In this world I tend to see it as denoting members that were present for the formative events in the alliances history, for the NPO that would be GPW.

And do you really think people aren't going to comment on MHA's actions and stance in this situation? It is quite an odd situation to see an alliance watch its other half engage in one of the most hilarious pieces of geopolitical comedy I have seen, and yet cannot make up its mind whether it supports it or not, with half the members saying it doesn't and the other half saying they'd consider rejoining the war if asked.
[/quote]

I am sorry we here at MHA are not the mindless drones you are used to over at Pacifica. You see we have over 600 members and not everyone will always agree. We are bound to have a rather split decision on a personal level. What matters is as an alliance whether some of us like it or not we are currently bound to Gre.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='scutterbug' date='10 June 2010 - 05:32 AM' timestamp='1276108348' post='2330401']
I am sorry we here at MHA are not the mindless drones you are used to over at Pacifica. You see we have over 600 members and not everyone will always agree. We are bound to have a rather split decision on a personal level. What matters is as an alliance whether some of us like it or not we are currently bound to Gre.
[/quote]
You guys are still using the mindless drone line? I thought [i]someone[/i] would have come up with some new material in 4 and a half years.

Yes, you are currently bound to Gre. Which is what makes your inaction interesting. The way you are now, sitting on the fence, neither cutting your ties with Gre nor moving to help them finish the war, just reinforces the view that you don't know what to do when you aren't just following Gre into wars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Haflinger' date='09 June 2010 - 05:18 AM' timestamp='1276057120' post='2329686']
It is funny to see all the new blood in MHA arguing about the meaning of Härmlins.

Actually are any of the signatories left on Planet Bob besides Janova and John Rocker?

Sigh. When they left, they should have taken their treaty with them.

[img]http://i215.photobucket.com/albums/cc2/LordSharpe/Nov5copy-1.png[/img]
[/quote]

Are any of the m left? Well lets see:

Count Rupert: Active MHA government advisory
Syz: Inactive I hear but still around currently a paradoxian
Denzin: Has passed where we cannot follow (see my sig for further details)
Lord Sharpe: Quit the game long before any of this has arisen, I hear he has re-rolled and still lurks the parts
Working Class Ruler: Also left the game but chooses not to re-roll
Bob Janova: Gone to Viridia
Shamshir: Alive and well back home in the MHA
Piff: Still in the gremlins

This "new blood" may say what they will about the meaning of Härmlins and what it is to them. But regardless for new or old every hitchhiker has the right to speak what he will. Härmlins is our personal relationship with the gremlins. We will interpret it as we will it's not your concern. We hitchhikers and our goverment have not sit idly by in our ivory towers laughing with our gremlins counterparts at IRON and DAWN. Both alliances have different views after all the MHA signed the Easter Sunday accords. But it our obligation to help the gremlins as best we can. Rustynail has already alluded that the only things keeping our brothers alive is us and fark. What would you have us do rather than try every possible avenue to end this simply drop them an allow the baying mob to crucify our oldest ally? Think what you will about the MHA but we do not bow down to the pressures of the OWF. We will do what is in our and our allies best interest.

[quote name='WorldConqueror' date='09 June 2010 - 07:48 PM' timestamp='1276109319' post='2330428']
You guys are still using the mindless drone line? I thought [i]someone[/i] would have come up with some new material in 4 and a half years.

Yes, you are currently bound to Gre. Which is what makes your inaction interesting. The way you are now, sitting on the fence, neither cutting your ties with Gre nor moving to help them finish the war, just reinforces the view that you don't know what to do when you aren't just following Gre into wars.
[/quote]

Yes were sitting on the fence and will continue to do so when were ready to move we'll let you know. If you seriously believe that "following Gre into wars" is all my alliance is able to do then you really should open your eyes. The act of the matter is if we drop Gre we lose our oldest ally and some really old but inactive gremlins. We stay by thier side for this drag our selves and our allies into needless bloodshed. I think were going to try to find an alternative solution. If those solution are not broadcast in these halls for all to see by our triumvirate and you wish to see the worst in us there is nothing we can say nor do that will sway you.

edit: I would not use the mindless drone line dear boy

Edited by Azrael Alexander
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Haflinger' date='09 June 2010 - 02:31 PM' timestamp='1276090301' post='2330083']
I know who Myth is. If you remember, at the time he joined MHA I was in an alliance that held an MADP with NATO.

And yes, I would call him new blood. Much of what I would refer to as old guard MHA went in the formation of Argent, and the others have gradually dropped off over the years.
[/quote]

Yes large chunk of the MHA old guard ([s]traitors[/s] sexy froods :wub: ) left to form argent but just as many stayed in the MHA. We would not have become the alliance we are today without that old guard forming the solid bedrock on which our alliance has been built. I don't see the purpose in referencing the splinter alliance who were just a select group of member who wanted an alliance with a different philosophy and slant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Azrael Alexander' date='09 June 2010 - 03:30 PM' timestamp='1276111804' post='2330482']
Härmlins is our personal relationship with the gremlins. We will interpret it as we will it's not your concern.
[/quote]
Frankly, considering that it is the one treaty that is being used to prolong the war and keep my alliance still bound by surrender terms, it is precisely my concern.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Haflinger' date='09 June 2010 - 09:24 PM' timestamp='1276115042' post='2330538']
Frankly, considering that it is the one treaty that is being used to prolong the war and keep my alliance still bound by surrender terms, it is precisely my concern.
[/quote]

As I said before you are in the unfortunate position of having to wait as nothing you do nor say will have an effect on the status of the Accords. Seeing as your terms are neutrality in this conflict (terms [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=81670"]here[/url]) it you who have to lie in the bed you made. Just as were having to do, regardless of how thorny the duvet

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[i]Total Soldier Casualties[/i]
[u]1)[/u] 9,029,110 Total Soldiers Lost - [b]Matt Miller of Bubbler Nation[/b] - Orange Team

o\[img]http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd208/knighthawk2000ak/Avatars/bowing21.gif[/img]/o

Edited by shahenshah
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='brickyard' date='09 June 2010 - 06:51 PM' timestamp='1276123871' post='2330727']
I have to say, I have an enormous amount of respect for MHA, and I hope that they distance themselves from Grams.
[/quote]

I'm curious, what do you respect about MHA?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Azrael Alexander' date='09 June 2010 - 05:23 PM' timestamp='1276118594' post='2330620']
As I said before you are in the unfortunate position of having to wait as nothing you do nor say will have an effect on the status of the Accords. Seeing as your terms are neutrality in this conflict (terms [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=81670"]here[/url]) it you who have to lie in the bed you made. Just as were having to do, regardless of how thorny the duvet
[/quote]
Oh, don't feel overly sympathetic. I can and will take actions while remaining within the surrender terms.

But don't complain too much about having to lie in the bed you made. You have the power to end this conflict.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know it's funny that there would be so much international condemnation directed toward the Gremlins over their decision to remain at war. It has to be a first for an alliance that has essentially acted honorably to be the subject of such vitriol. They have acted in an upright manner (No spying, hacking etc.) and yet simply because they choose to be the masters of their own foreign policy, a mob has descended upon them to throw rubbish and refuse at them, as if they were some sort of criminal organization for staying true to their ideals. Where most seem to see a group of villains, I see a stalwart, close-knit alliance standing firm and true, despite an incredible amount of opposition. In the spirit of standing firm and not bending your back to outside pressure, I salute you Gremlins.

o/ Gremlins

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Hydro' date='10 June 2010 - 04:51 AM' timestamp='1276159900' post='2331468']
They have acted in an upright manner (No spying, hacking etc.) and yet simply because they choose to be the masters of their own foreign policy, a mob has descended upon them to throw rubbish and refuse at them, as if they were some sort of [b]criminal organization[/b] for staying true to their ideals.
[/quote]
It's funny that you should use that phrase, given that's how Ramirus has described IRON.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Hydro' date='10 June 2010 - 10:51 AM' timestamp='1276159900' post='2331468']
You know it's funny that there would be so much international condemnation directed toward the Gremlins over their decision to remain at war. It has to be a first for an alliance that has essentially acted honorably to be the subject of such vitriol. They have acted in an upright manner (No spying, hacking etc.) and yet simply because they choose to be the masters of their own foreign policy, a mob has descended upon them to throw rubbish and refuse at them, as if they were some sort of criminal organization for staying true to their ideals. Where most seem to see a group of villains, I see a stalwart, close-knit alliance standing firm and true, despite an incredible amount of opposition. In the spirit of standing firm and not bending your back to outside pressure, I salute you Gremlins.

o/ Gremlins
[/quote]
:lol1:

The gRAMlins are nothing but a bunch of hypocrites who are completely out of touch with reality to a point where their alliance is on the path of self-destruction. They presumably pursue IRON and my alliance for a crime they have committed themselves as well, they want to morality rectify a situation where the perceived victim of the act which they are prosecuting has long since agreed to a form of compensation from the presumed criminals. They chose to limit their moral crusade in scale on a smaller part of the group which appearently committed the crime by rationalization of real-politics and strategy, yet their entire war is supposedly based on moral standards, which then in turn serves as justification for the giant strategical and tactical mess up this war has been, let alone the political fallout of their actions.
They fail morally because they are hypocrites acting inconsistently, they fail politically because they harmed their reputation more than anyone else could have done, alienating many people an alliances in the process, they fail strategically because they are currently losing a conflict which they already had won, they fail tactically because their nations are outnumbered and get beaten down one by one.

It is simply put, completely incredible to fail so thoroughly and completely on such a grand scale on every level, failure does not even describe it anymore.

Edited by shilo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...