Jump to content

The New Grämlins


Iotupa

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 5.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

[quote name='Matt Miller' date='11 June 2010 - 05:43 PM' timestamp='1276274581' post='2333340']
Toranaga of Slaughterhouse bought from ~3500 to ~4000 tech twice in the last month. Question, what's worse, that or Marc Aurel and other Gramlins failing literally 40+ spy attempts to destroy my HNMS protected nukes during Karma and the war that ended with the signing of the ESA? I got quite the chuckle out of both.
[/quote]

I think the spy attempts is worse, thats pretty ugly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Thorgrum' date='11 June 2010 - 08:57 PM' timestamp='1276304225' post='2334119']
I think the spy attempts is worse, thats pretty ugly.
[/quote]
Yes, spying silo nukes is incredibly dumb.

When it goes into the dozens of attempts, it's hilarious.

At least the 500 tech would help him fight, even if it's horrifically inefficient.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Clash' date='11 June 2010 - 12:27 PM' timestamp='1276284402' post='2333516']
Whyyyy would IRON owe Gre an apology? For WHAT!?!
Where is my pony.

lololGre
[/quote]


[quote name='franciscus' date='11 June 2010 - 03:57 PM' timestamp='1276297025' post='2333982']
I stick to my demand of a shrubbery.

In all seriousness, MPK, you seem to be an intelligent individual. I mean, attempting to defend an indefensible position such as the one your alliance has for so long and through so many posts certainly requires an amount of grey matter. Are you trying to say that IRON was "forced" to offer an apology through the ESA peace talks or you've lost yourself in your own arguments? Man, sit down, take a deep breath and come up with a better excuse or simply ignore this argument, because you look inept. The only ones who would have been forced to offer an apology, not to those who have been attacked, but to Gre, was DAWN. That's why you won't see us complaining about this war still going. Were we scandalized, appalled, shocked, intrigued or w/e about Gre taking their own terms off the table after them being accepted and the way this happened? Yes. Sad, worried or displeased? Hell, no.
Would we have offered Gre some apologies as part of terms? Yes. Honest? Most probably not.
Have we offered an apology to CnG? Yes. Honest? Most probably yes. Did they care about them? Hell no. You see, unlike your's, CnG leaders actually knew what a preemptive attack means and understood why our attack targeted them, all propaganda aside. They'd've probably done the same, if situations were reversed. Or maybe not, but a preemptive strike still has its strategical value. One that your dear leader either never heard about or thought nobody else heard off and such he could reap some more PR points by attempting to humiliate two alliances. Isn't life a !@#$%*? Go figure, in this world, there are more than just a handful of rulers with working neurons between their ears. And Gre is in an impossible position. You can no longer impose your terms, you know damn well they'd never be accepted, not even out of pity and yet you can't go back on your word because you'd lose the only thing left for you: your e-!@#$%*.
[/quote]


Reading Comprehension.

I never said IRON owed GRE (or anybody else) and apology.
Nor did I say they should apologize (to the best of my knowledge)

Edited by Matthew PK
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Though I see little discussion of this in this LONG thread, I will say that I have been friends with Von Droz for quite a while, and have never for a moment doubted his intelligence, sense of propriety or basic decency in any way at any time. He has, in fact, always been a productive and dedicated member of his alliance and a scrupulously honorable player. This small gaffe in the course of a rather convoluted story should be a mere footnote, not a 194-page long thread. It's summer, people, get outside and enjoy it.

I remain baffled as to why people persist in posting private queries to pastebin and what compels supposedly disinterested third parties to put the fruits of their dumpster diving on public display.

Truly charming.

Edited by Valdemar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='12 June 2010 - 01:15 AM' timestamp='1276319737' post='2334628']
Reading Comprehension.

I never said IRON owed GRE (or anybody else) and apology.
Nor did I say they should apologize (to the best of my knowledge)
[/quote]

Yes you have, repeatedly, in fact the desire for a sincere apology was your excuse for the whole unconditional surrender fiasco, you desired a means by which to be sure that such an apology was sincere.

There was even that bit where we argued about the meaning of elocution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='TypoNinja' date='12 June 2010 - 12:03 AM' timestamp='1276326166' post='2334732']
Yes you have, repeatedly, in fact the desire for a sincere apology was your excuse for the whole unconditional surrender fiasco, you desired a means by which to be sure that such an apology was sincere.

There was even that bit where we argued about the meaning of elocution.
[/quote]


Reading Comprehension.

I implore you to search this thread for the words "apology" or "apologize".

Hint: "Allocution" and "Apology" are not synonymns

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MPK, you are absolutely correct, not once have you used the words "apology" or "apologize"
However on a few occasions you have said the following, which is strongly suggestive that IRON and DAWN do need to apologise.


.[quote name='Matthew PK']an admission of moral failing to us rather than to CnG (who, through IRON's war, had their boot to IRON's throat) has a more significantly implied sincerity[/quote]



[quote name='Matthew PK']I contend that many people see the danger of allowing an alliance to "get away" with a clear wrongdoing without admitting their moral failing[/quote]

[quote name='Matthew PK']They should not be allowed to escape this war without admitting their clear moral failing.[/quote]

[quote name='Matthew PK']IRON admitted to a strategic failing, not a moral failing[/quote]

[quote name='Matthew PK']It is my belief that IRON recognizes their moral failing but thinks they can "slip by" with not admitting it because they are stronger.[/quote]



[quote name='Matthew PK']but the perpetrators have not acknowledged it was unwarranted; thus by our analysis the mission is not accomplished.[/quote]



[quote name='Matthew PK']What world do you live in where wanting somebody to acknowledge their wrongdoings is "trying to humiliate" them?[/quote]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Lord Rune' date='12 June 2010 - 09:12 AM' timestamp='1276359130' post='2335046']
MPK, you are absolutely correct, not once have you used the words "apology" or "apologize"
However on a few occasions you have said the following, which is strongly suggestive that IRON and DAWN do need to apologise.
[/quote]

Not so; and for the reasons stated previously.


"Apology" implies feeling sorrow or remorse for their actions.
It would be asinine for GRE (or anybody else, for that matter) to demand an alliance "feel" a certain way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='12 June 2010 - 10:12 AM' timestamp='1276351903' post='2334924']
Reading Comprehension.

I implore you to search this thread for the words "apology" or "apologize".

Hint: "Allocution" and "Apology" are not synonymns
[/quote]

Normally no, but since the further context of the discussion established that the allocution you were looking for was a statement of guild/culpability in this case it applies.

I'm not digging back through the thread if you insist on being obstructionist enough that I have to prove something you said in a public venue, but if you want I've got a PM from your leader stating that's exactly what Gre is seeking.

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='12 June 2010 - 02:51 PM' timestamp='1276368666' post='2335242']
It would be asinine for GRE (or anybody else, for that matter) to demand an alliance "feel" a certain way.
[/quote]

Yes it would be, that's kind of our point.

Edited by TypoNinja
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Valdemar' date='12 June 2010 - 01:36 AM' timestamp='1276324601' post='2334713']
Though I see little discussion of this in this LONG thread, I will say that I have been friends with Von Droz for quite a while, and have never for a moment doubted his intelligence, sense of propriety or basic decency in any way at any time. He has, in fact, always been a productive and dedicated member of his alliance and a scrupulously honorable player. This small gaffe in the course of a rather convoluted story should be a mere footnote, not a 194-page long thread. It's summer, people, get outside and enjoy it.

I remain baffled as to why people persist in posting private queries to pastebin and what compels supposedly disinterested third parties to put the fruits of their dumpster diving on public display.

Truly charming.
[/quote]

I do not doubt the intelligence, sense of propriety, or basic decency of Von Droz or any Gramlins. I think they may think they are doing the right thing and have rationalized their actions adequately.

The fact is that they refuse to grant an alliance peace by demanding what the vast majority sees as unreasonable and unacceptable. The PR fallout from this stance has cost them their NS advantage against that opponent. They had already won the war but refused to end it.

If they do not change course a hammer will come down on them and if they choose that route I hope they do not play the victim. They know exactly what they are doing and the consequences that must follow. They can end this in an instant by simply accepting white peace offers that are still on the table. I think global frustration with them will inevitably reach a tipping point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='12 June 2010 - 07:51 PM' timestamp='1276368666' post='2335242']
Not so; and for the reasons stated previously.


"Apology" implies feeling sorrow or remorse for their actions.
It would be asinine for GRE (or anybody else, for that matter) to demand an alliance "feel" a certain way.
[/quote]

Ah, you're using semantics, good tactic. Nice to see that this is the same method you've been employing throughout this thread. Maybe you convince yourself that you are fooling others with your long words and "that's not what I said", but I think you've failed all the way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='TypoNinja' date='12 June 2010 - 11:56 AM' timestamp='1276368954' post='2335247']
Normally no, but since the further context of the discussion established that the allocution you were looking for was a statement of guild/culpability in this case it applies.

I'm not digging back through the thread if you insist on being obstructionist enough that I have to prove something you said in a public venue, but if you want I've got a PM from your leader stating that's exactly what Gre is seeking.



Yes it would be, that's kind of our point.
[/quote]



[quote name='Lord Rune' date='12 June 2010 - 01:15 PM' timestamp='1276373728' post='2335327']
Ah, you're using semantics, good tactic. Nice to see that this is the same method you've been employing throughout this thread. Maybe you convince yourself that you are fooling others with your long words and "that's not what I said", but I think you've failed all the way.
[/quote]


It's not semantics and you're smarter than to think so.

Insisting somebody admit to committing an action is a radically different thing than insisting they feel "sorry" for committing the action.

If you cannot see, or will not acknowledge, the distinction then there is no use continuing this discussion.

Edited by Matthew PK
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Lord Rune' date='12 June 2010 - 04:15 PM' timestamp='1276373728' post='2335327']
Ah, you're using semantics, good tactic. Nice to see that this is the same method you've been employing throughout this thread. Maybe you convince yourself that you are fooling others with your long words and "that's not what I said", but I think you've failed all the way.
[/quote]

Semantics only work if you have a good grasp of the language, considering how often we've had to correct his understanding of the words and phrases he's employing I'd have to says its failed pretty solidly on Matt's part.

Edit to avoid double post:

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='12 June 2010 - 04:43 PM' timestamp='1276375402' post='2335354']
It's not semantics and you're smarter than to think so.

Insisting somebody admit to committing an action is a radically different thing than insisting they feel "sorry" for committing the action.

If you cannot see, or will not acknowledge, the distinction then there is no use continuing this discussion.
[/quote]

It is very much semantics, you demand an 'allocution' instead of an apology then in the same breath say the allocution you are looking for is a statement of guilt. That's called an apology sparky.

Edited by TypoNinja
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='12 June 2010 - 09:43 PM' timestamp='1276375402' post='2335354']


Insisting somebody admit to committing an action is a radically different thing than insisting they feel "sorry" for committing the action.

[/quote]

So if IRON/DAWN were to say that they committed a pre-emptive attack, that would suffice?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is the "moral failing" that MatthewPK keeps referring to?

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='12 June 2010 - 03:43 PM' timestamp='1276375402' post='2335354']
Insisting somebody admit to committing an action is a radically different thing than insisting they feel "sorry" for committing the action.
[/quote]

How could "an admission of moral failing" ever be equivalent to admitting "committing an action"?

Semantics are important, but it's obvious that MatthewPK is dancing hard and fast here. Not out of concern for precision in discussion, but in an attempt to avoid admitting his position is indefensible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Zombie Glaucon' date='12 June 2010 - 09:59 PM' timestamp='1276376345' post='2335379']
Semantics are important, but it's obvious that MatthewPK is dancing hard and fast here. Not out of concern for precision in discussion, but in an attempt to avoid admitting his position is indefensible.
[/quote]

That pretty much covers the last 170 pages, matthew is a smart guy certainly his graps and use of vocabularly is exceptional. The kicker is, and this isnt meant as a shot at you specifically, the continued attempt to engage in any meaningful discussion. If your point is true, that his position is indefensible why is it do you think people keep engaging? Lack of intelligence? Boredom? Desire to get that one moment of screw up or admission?

Matthew isnt impetous, he wont trip up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Thorgrum' date='12 June 2010 - 04:09 PM' timestamp='1276376932' post='2335389']
That pretty much covers the last 170 pages, matthew is a smart guy certainly his graps and use of vocabularly is exceptional. The kicker is, and this isnt meant as a shot at you specifically, the continued attempt to engage in any meaningful discussion. [b][u]If your point is true, that his position is indefensible why is it do you think people keep engaging?[/u][/b] Lack of intelligence? Boredom? Desire to get that one moment of screw up or admission?

Matthew isnt impetous, he wont trip up.
[/quote]

Because IRON is still at war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Lord Rune' date='12 June 2010 - 01:55 PM' timestamp='1276376090' post='2335370']
So if IRON/DAWN were to say that they committed a pre-emptive attack, that would suffice?
[/quote]


Perhaps they should surrender and find out!

[quote name='Zombie Glaucon' date='12 June 2010 - 01:59 PM' timestamp='1276376345' post='2335379']
What is the "moral failing" that MatthewPK keeps referring to?



How could "an admission of moral failing" ever be equivalent to admitting "committing an action"?

Semantics are important, but it's obvious that MatthewPK is dancing hard and fast here. Not out of concern for precision in discussion, but in an attempt to avoid admitting his position is indefensible.
[/quote]

In this case they are one and the same.
Nonetheless, admitting to doing wrong is not the same as expressing remorse for doing wrong.

And if you're going to throw around words like "indefensible" then you need to come up with some actual asaults on my position rather than quips and generally avoiding the discussion.
I contend that "my position" [b]as spun by many here[/b] is tremendously different than what is really going on.

Therein lies the basis for the disagreement; at least by my analysis.
Most people here disagree with some foreign concept completely noncolinear to my actual procession.

They do not disagree with what I am actually standing for.

Edited by Matthew PK
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='12 June 2010 - 11:02 PM' timestamp='1276380156' post='2335426']
Perhaps they should surrender and find out!

[/quote]

I think its been established that's not very likely. How about you tell them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...