The New Grämlins

[Baldr]

[quote name='ccabal86' date='13 June 2010 - 05:07 PM' timestamp='1276466839' post='2336418']
Unfortunately there is no way that could work out. Even if they miraculaously agreed to some sort of terms, there is no way they would deliver them and we'd have to go back to war kicking their stupid @#$% again.
[/quote]

He's suggesting you should remove the offer for white peace and simply kill them with no terms offered, instead of leaving them the option of saying "Ok, that's enough" at any point.

Myself, I think that a few of their nations, MathewPK, Ertty, Raminus, should be beat down.

I'd feel it wrong for them to be able to just say "Ok, white peace, lets stop fighting" as soon as their nations are the ones getting hit.

[BlkAK47_002]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='13 June 2010 - 05:50 PM' timestamp='1276465797' post='2336409']
Or it could be that we don't care what the OWF clamors on about.
I'm here for the sport of it and to answer questions for those genuinely interested in understanding. My friends and allies pretty much all have their own discussion threads with us in their own forums away from the hilarious posturing of the disconnected (and deliberately ignorant) parties here.
[/quote]
Perhaps that is why Gre is this current predicament, You don't care what goes on in the OWF. These forums house the court of public opinion and can also make or break your alliance in terms of PR. Which has already happened to Gre.

[amad123]

[quote name='Schmoo' date='13 June 2010 - 09:28 AM' timestamp='1276435715' post='2336112']
I don't feel one shred of remorse or guilt, nor will I ever. Did we make a huge strategic blunder? Absolutely. Are we a group of morally bankrupt people? Absolutely not. Gre, you will see no surrender, allocution, contrition, amends, remorse, guilt, shame, apology or w/e from IRON. There is no need to argue this anymore. Personally, I think we should take the offer of white peace off the table. Not to make demands for reps, but to completely destroy you. You arrogant pricks.
[/quote]
I fully support this statement. Morally/ethically Gramlins can be whatever they want to be. It’s a game and we can play it anyway we want to. It’s obvious we don’t care about your moral high ground. You can’t force it on us and you appear to be very weak at persuasion. Might doesn’t make right, but might will win the war. I also believe the white peace offer should be taken off the table. I’m looking forward to nuking Ram and Matt when they drop within range. I would be outraged if they accepted white peace days before I could declare on either of them. It’s not that I want reps. I want Gre to be totally destroyed, every nation to be bill locked and ZI’d. Only then will I be prepared to rebuild and prepare for the next war. With white peace on the table gramlins has the ability to control when the war ends. I don’t want them to have that power. I want IRON/DAWN to decide when the war ends. Let’s take the offer off the table.



[quote name='Hiro Nakara' date='13 June 2010 - 09:30 AM' timestamp='1276435832' post='2336115']
Unless I'm mistaken, not ALL alliances are tied to surrender terms, thus they have a choice to defend iron, They just fear the repercussions from other alliances. I see that as slightly different to "NOT ALLOWED", they have a choice, they just fear the outcome of involving other allies.
[/quote]
Any alliance can do anything they want as long as they are willing to face the consequences of their actions. IRON/Dawn control the battlefield now. If any other alliance joined in, it would greatly increase the scope of the war. Right now it’s easily manageable and takes minimal effort on our part. It would be a grave mistake on our part to bring anyone else into this war. A few of us like to nuke Gramlins from time to time, the rest of us get to rebuild without having to pay reps. We are safe from attack from our old enemies, we have a good thing going right now, why mess that up by bringing in help that could jeopardize a sure thing?



[quote name='Matthew PK' date='13 June 2010 - 03:18 PM' timestamp='1276456695' post='2336320']
As I stated before, we are not at war with TOP, TORN or any other alliances you listed. We are at war only with IRON. Therefore, we are discussing the surrender process for IRON.
[/quote]
No you are not discussing the surrender process for IRON. All you have discussed so far is your definition for “Unconditional Surrender” which in case you haven’t noticed we have no interest in. In fact we have no interest in the terms that would follow it either. The best thing for Gremlins is that they be destroyed so no one ever finds out what your terms were. If the alliances on Planet Bob ever found out what you were holding out for, Gramlins would be the laughing stock of all alliances. You just keep digging a bigger and bigger hole and your only hope is that it will collapse and bury you.



[quote name='Matthew PK' date='13 June 2010 - 05:50 PM' timestamp='1276465797' post='2336409']
I've fought Matt Miller before, multiple times. He's a great guy to go to war with. Classy and capable. Right now he's not in my range. I suspect that eventually he will build up and declare war on me. [/quote]
Actually all you need to do is dump some infra and you would be able to engage him now. You’re going to lose it anyway, why wait? The fact that you think we will build up to hit you shows how little you understand what is happening. No one needs to build up to hit you. You will be brought down to Matt Miller’s range and then he will hit you if it suits our purpose.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='amad123' date='13 June 2010 - 04:39 PM' timestamp='1276472361' post='2336483']
I fully support this statement. Morally/ethically Gramlins can be whatever they want to be. It’s a game and we can play it anyway we want to. It’s obvious we don’t care about your moral high ground. You can’t force it on us and you appear to be very weak at persuasion. Might doesn’t make right, but might will win the war. I also believe the white peace offer should be taken off the table. I’m looking forward to nuking Ram and Matt when they drop within range. I would be outraged if they accepted white peace days before I could declare on either of them. [b]It’s not that I want reps. I want Gre to be totally destroyed, every nation to be bill locked and ZI’d. Only then will I be prepared to rebuild and prepare for the next war. With white peace on the table gramlins has the ability to control when the war ends. I don’t want them to have that power. I want IRON/DAWN to decide when the war ends. Let’s take the offer off the table.[/b][/quote]


Behold: amad123 of the Democratic Alliance of Wise Nations!
The just and honorable harbiner of peace!
Go forth and smite the putrid and tyrannical Gremlins!




[quote]Any alliance can do anything they want as long as they are willing to face the consequences of their actions. [b]IRON/Dawn control the battlefield now.[/b] If any other alliance joined in, it would greatly increase the scope of the war. Right now it’s easily manageable and takes minimal effort on our part. It would be a grave mistake on our part to bring anyone else into this war. A few of us like to nuke Gramlins from time to time, the rest of us get to rebuild without having to pay reps. We are safe from attack from our old enemies, we have a good thing going right now, why mess that up by bringing in help that could jeopardize a sure thing?[/quote]

It's absolutely adorable how you think that your prowess had anything to do with it!


[quote]No you are not discussing the surrender process for IRON. All you have discussed so far is your definition for “Unconditional Surrender” which in case you haven’t noticed we have no interest in. In fact we have no interest in the terms that would follow it either. [b]The best thing for Gremlins is that they be destroyed so no one ever finds out what your terms were. [/b] If the alliances on Planet Bob ever found out what you were holding out for, Gramlins would be the laughing stock of all alliances. You just keep digging a bigger and bigger hole and your only hope is that it will collapse and bury you.[/quote]

Praise Admin on high for his servant, amad123, has borne the yolk to bring honor and peace to this bitter and evil conflit!


[quote]Actually all you need to do is dump some infra and you would be able to engage him now. You’re going to lose it anyway, why wait? The fact that you think we will build up to hit you shows how little you understand what is happening. No one needs to build up to hit you. You will be brought down to Matt Miller’s range and then he will hit you if it suits our purpose.
[/quote]

Be sure to let me know more details so that we might properly align our actions with a strategy more fitting to your vision. Particularly, let me know when there is a single nation in IRON within my range.

Edited June 14, 2010 by Matthew PK

[Crymson]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='13 June 2010 - 01:18 PM' timestamp='1276456695' post='2336320']
As I stated before, we are not at war with TOP, TORN or any other alliances you listed.
We are at war only with IRON. Therefore, we are discussing the surrender process for IRON.
[/quote]

At this stage, I think you guys should really start considering what terms you'd be willing to accept [b]from[/b] IRON rather than the terms you'd be willing to offer [b]to[/b] them. With all the people you've pissed off, and given that you guys are now less than 50% of IRON's size and have antagonized them to extremes rarely seen in this game with your totally extreme and unreasonable behavior, I think it would take a stroke of exceptional lenience on their part for them to grant you white peace at this stage.

You're officially delusional at this stage, given your circumstances.

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='Thorgrum' date='13 June 2010 - 05:38 PM' timestamp='1276465084' post='2336400']
Yes he is, you genius's are still replying to him and arguing. I assume you all are reading your own posts, perhaps I shouldnt. You know he is wrong, gre screwed up, Matthew is full of !@#$ (something like those sentiments) If you all were reading your own posts, and believed the content I cant fathom why you would need or want to reply to matthew in any form at all, again perhaps its intelligence.
[/quote]

Just becuase hes spouting obviously flawed !@#$%^&* doesn't mean we should let it go unanswered. CN is once again in an age where publicly disagreeing with someone won't get you rolled, why should we not publicly deride Gre if we feel they are being idiots?

Matt's PR strategy is quite clear to everybody but you, repeat the same nonsense over and over until people start believing it, so as long as he wants to keep spouting crap we'll keep calling him on it.

Besides, have you considered that some of us get our enjoyment from this type of activity? You'll notice my posting record for example, I tend not to be one of those random "hail! This is good" people in every thread, I am most active around controversy, I enjoy debating an issue.

[quote]
He's winning, your game.
[/quote]

No hes losing by every measure, hes simply delusional, as are you.

[Augustus Autumn]

So, in essence, what you have here is something in the order of two-hundred pages of commentary which boils down to people railing against the Gramlins and their policy toward prosecuting the war against IRON and DAWN, Gramlins representatives being typically self-righteous and generally nothing changing as far as the course of events.

At the end of the day the Gramlins will sort themselves out or they won't. Personally, it's a shame to see an alliance which was once something to be respected being reduced to shadow of itself because of the egos of one or more persons. On the other hand, that's their call. They want to wither on the vine and throw themselves away to the applause of the Cyberverse, so be it. Hopefully IRON and DAWN can deal with what is amounting to a series of persistent tech raiders and move along as this war peters out into nothing. I'm sure they'll find their way.

As for the public relations nonsense, what's done is done. I suspect that the best way to proceed with this war from here for the Gramlins is to go radio-silent like some already have, get on with it and then hive off to lick their wounds when all is said and done. None of us is really going to convince Ramirus or any of them of a different course.

Edited June 14, 2010 by Ferrozoica Hive

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Crymson' date='13 June 2010 - 05:52 PM' timestamp='1276476715' post='2336543']
At this stage, I think you guys should really start considering what terms you'd be willing to accept [b]from[/b] IRON rather than the terms you'd be willing to offer [b]to[/b] them. With all the people you've pissed off, and given that you guys are now less than 50% of IRON's size and have antagonized them to extremes rarely seen in this game with your totally extreme and unreasonable behavior, I think it would take a stroke of exceptional lenience on their part for them to grant you white peace at this stage.

You're officially delusional at this stage, given your circumstances.
[/quote]

Antagonized them to extremes?
I thought The Gremlins were having no effect on IRON? That's been the most recent line as to why we should give up this effort.

Is this like some sort of OWF contest? Who can bounce back and forth fastest between 30 page gaps in your excuses?


[quote name='TypoNinja' date='13 June 2010 - 05:59 PM' timestamp='1276477171' post='2336547']
Just becuase hes spouting obviously flawed !@#$%^&* doesn't mean we should let it go unanswered. CN is once again in an age where publicly disagreeing with someone won't get you rolled, why should we not publicly deride Gre if we feel they are being idiots?

Matt's PR strategy is quite clear to everybody but you, [b]repeat the same nonsense over and over until people start believing it[/b], so as long as he wants to keep spouting crap we'll keep calling him on it.

Besides, have you considered that some of us get our enjoyment from this type of activity? You'll notice my posting record for example, I tend not to be one of those random "hail! This is good" people in every thread, I am most active around controversy, I enjoy debating an issue.



No hes losing by every measure, hes simply delusional, as are you.
[/quote]


Emphasis mine,
Or, alternatively, people believe it because it was correct all along.
Now they have just had their questions answered, things are clarified, and the trolls are more obvious.

I'll make you a deal: You keep throwing the excuses and the dictionary arguments and I'll keep repeating that you're wrong and that you're deliberately misrepresenting our actions.
Then, all along the thread, I'll continue to appropriate answer anybody fielding actual questions.

Edited June 14, 2010 by Matthew PK

[Charles the Great]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='13 June 2010 - 11:29 PM' timestamp='1276478932' post='2336591']
Is this like some sort of OWF contest? Who can bounce back and forth fastest between 30 page gaps in your excuses?
[/quote]

Pot meet Kettle

[Augustus Autumn]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='13 June 2010 - 09:29 PM' timestamp='1276478932' post='2336591']
Is this like some sort of OWF contest?[/quote]

Yes, it is. Your question is condescendingly rhetorical. Again, consider radio silence. You're not doing yourself, Ramirus or the rest of your club much good here.

[Banksy]

[quote name='Qazzian' date='14 June 2010 - 01:37 AM' timestamp='1276432656' post='2336097']
What would that have to do with anything? Have you ever heard of a retroactive treaty?[/quote]
So the NPO wouldn't be willing to help a treaty partner out if the conflict had already started? Interesting.
[quote name='Qazzian' date='14 June 2010 - 01:37 AM' timestamp='1276432656' post='2336097']
Gramlins and IRON are the two parties who need to end this. IRON has an offer sitting on the table that will accomplish that immediately, Gramlins has a partial offer on the table that will stall the war but makes no guarantee since there are more terms to be offered at a later time. Any other alliance becoming directly (ie, militarily) involved would only serve to bring in more alliances against them, and is not going to help end the war any sooner. It will accomplish the exact opposite.[/quote]
I always thought wars were won by, you know, winning. IRON and Gremlins are at a standstill as IRON can't engage with Gremlin's upper tier. I'm sure IRON wouldn't say no to a bit of help.

[quote name='deathman1212' date='14 June 2010 - 02:27 AM' timestamp='1276435616' post='2336111']
Its seems those who wish to help have been told they are not allowed to.
[/quote]
Yes, the NPO are under surrender terms right now and cannot declare war, how silly of me

[bakamitai]

[quote name='Thorgrum' date='13 June 2010 - 04:10 PM' timestamp='1276459800' post='2336350']
He dosent need any help, as expected, matthew is performing brilliantly.
[/quote]
Agreed. On that note, I have a suggestion for Mr. PK's "publicity photograph":

[img]http://sportsmed.starwave.com/i/magazine/new/iraq_minister.jpg[/img]

Edited June 14, 2010 by bakamitai

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Banksy' date='13 June 2010 - 08:39 PM' timestamp='1276479564' post='2336602']
So the NPO wouldn't be willing to help a treaty partner out if the conflict had already started? Interesting.
[/quote]

in all honesty, very few would. especially considering that should NPO treaty IRON and then DoW Gremlins, i doubt MHA is gonna sit there and twiddle their thumbs. then there is CnG who would most likely jump at the chance of rolling NPO for being stupid enough to initiate that action. with that DoW, we would be hearing "NPO retroactively activated a treaty!!!!! they are ebil to the max!!!!!" type crap.

if you honestly think that NPO would be allowed to do that without receiving crap, then you are quite delusional.

[Gamemaster1]

[quote name='Thorgrum' date='13 June 2010 - 05:38 PM' timestamp='1276465084' post='2336400']
Yes he is, you genius's are still replying to him and arguing. I assume you all are reading your own posts, perhaps I shouldnt. You know he is wrong, gre screwed up, Matthew is full of !@#$ (something like those sentiments) If you all were reading your own posts, and believed the content I cant fathom why you would need or want to reply to matthew in any form at all, again perhaps its intelligence.

He's winning, your game.
[/quote]

If he continues to spout nonsense, I'll continue to answer it. It does directly involve me, after all.


[quote name='Matthew PK' date='13 June 2010 - 05:50 PM' timestamp='1276465797' post='2336409']
Are you suggesting that GRE should be at war with TOP and TORN?
Go find a time machine and bring it up in January.
For now, there is no reason for you to continue to spout it except to whine that we're at war with you and not them.

It is possible to stand for a cause without standing in front of a train.
[/quote]
First off, I'm not whining. But nice choice of words to try and reinforce your statement. Maybe I should use a few derogatory remarks to bring down your ethos before I actually respond to your argument too.

Maybe you'll understand an analogy since you clearly do not understand you own hypocrisy.

1 person goes to rob a bank because he thinks the bank is cheating people. He gets 6 other people to go distract the cops by robbing a nearby bank of the same branch.
The person goes to rob his bank. He robs it then quickly escapes without penalty. The other 6 people rob the other branch. They are stormed by citizens trying to stop them, including the robber of the other bank. There is a lot of fighting. One surrenders a bit earlier then the others, but eventually they all surrender. All 6 agree to go to jail. One, however, does not get off so easily. One of the citizens continues to punch two criminals that he attacked first. He will not allow them to go to jail. Instead, they have to agree to do whatever the citizen wants, and then go to jail.

The citizen, however, does nothing about the remaining criminals. They are free to go to jail, and eventually continue with their lives. Not the two. They, for apparently no particular reason, are the subject of this citizen's experiment. And he is indignant they do not do want he wants. They should do want he wants solely because he wants it done. Never mind the fact that their punishment already awaits them.

Hypocrisy.

All of the coalition has done the same thing. They are all equally guilty.

You attacked two, citing the reason for your attack as 'they are guilty and should surrender to us'. You leave the others.

Now, I will ask my question [i]again[/i]. Try to respond without attempting to reduce my ethos.

Why IRON and DAWN?

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='13 June 2010 - 05:50 PM' timestamp='1276465797' post='2336409']
I've fought Matt Miller before, multiple times. He's a great guy to go to war with. Classy and capable.
Right now he's not in my range. I suspect that eventually he will build up and declare war on me.

Please do us all a favor and spare your keystrokes about why [Person A] hasn't attacked [Person B], it is irrelevant.
Your attempt at baiting isn't going to work on me.
[/quote]

Thanks for trying to avoid the point. When he gets into range, I expect you to declare on him. You already said you would. He shouldn't have to do all the work.



[quote name='Matthew PK' date='13 June 2010 - 05:50 PM' timestamp='1276465797' post='2336409']
Or it could be that we don't care what the OWF clamors on about.
I'm here for the sport of it and to answer questions for those genuinely interested in understanding. My friends and allies pretty much all have their own discussion threads with us in their own forums away from the hilarious posturing of the disconnected (and deliberately ignorant) parties here.
[/quote]

You continue to try and paint everyone else in this thread as a disconnected and ignorant idiot. They aren't.

[Baldr]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='13 June 2010 - 07:22 PM' timestamp='1276474961' post='2336517']
Behold: amad123 of the Democratic Alliance of Wise Nations!
The just and honorable harbiner of peace!
Go forth and smite the putrid and tyrannical Gremlins![/quote]

You've kept them at war for over 3 months since the Easter Accords were signed, refusing any reasonable offers, refusing to even discuss peace, calling them criminals, calling them cowards, and being a jerk.

"Unconditional Surrender or War Forever." That's been your story.

They are not going to give you unconditional surrender, so you get the war forever.

I don't know why you are surprised.

You did get the "putrid and tyrannical" part correct, so I'll give you points for that.

[quote]Particularly, let me know when there is a single nation in IRON within my range[/quote]

I'm pretty sure that within minutes of having an IRON nation in your range, you'll get a "You have been attacked" message.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Baldr' date='13 June 2010 - 08:26 PM' timestamp='1276485970' post='2336735']
You've kept them at war for over 3 months since the Easter Accords were signed, refusing any reasonable offers, refusing to even discuss peace, calling them criminals, calling them cowards, and being a jerk.

"Unconditional Surrender or War Forever." That's been your story.

They are not going to give you unconditional surrender, so you get the war forever.

I don't know why you are surprised.

You did get the "putrid and tyrannical" part correct, so I'll give you points for that.



I'm pretty sure that within minutes of having an IRON nation in your range, you'll get a "You have been attacked" message.
[/quote]


There is a clear path to peace.
It has been outlined many times.

Our opponents have chosen to stay at war. They shouldn't get ornery when it then takes longer.
Particularly, while GRE wishes nothing more than for IRON to see the error of their ways and accept the path to peace (which, had they done initially, probably would have them absolved before the ESA was even signed) amad123 implies that he wants nothing less than the total ZI and bill-lock of all GRE nations ...

and you justify it because of the "inconvenience" of the extended war.
You don't see even the slightest bit of irony in that?


[quote name='Gamemaster1' date='13 June 2010 - 07:57 PM' timestamp='1276484250' post='2336680']
If he continues to spout nonsense, I'll continue to answer it. It does directly involve me, after all.



First off, I'm not whining. But nice choice of words to try and reinforce your statement. Maybe I should use a few derogatory remarks to bring down your ethos before I actually respond to your argument too.

Maybe you'll understand an analogy since you clearly do not understand you own hypocrisy.

1 person goes to rob a bank because he thinks the bank is cheating people. He gets 6 other people to go distract the cops by robbing a nearby bank of the same branch.
The person goes to rob his bank. He robs it then quickly escapes without penalty. The other 6 people rob the other branch. They are stormed by citizens trying to stop them, including the robber of the other bank. There is a lot of fighting. One surrenders a bit earlier then the others, but eventually they all surrender. All 6 agree to go to jail. One, however, does not get off so easily. One of the citizens continues to punch two criminals that he attacked first. He will not allow them to go to jail. Instead, they have to agree to do whatever the citizen wants, and then go to jail.

The citizen, however, does nothing about the remaining criminals. They are free to go to jail, and eventually continue with their lives. Not the two. They, for apparently no particular reason, are the subject of this citizen's experiment. And he is indignant they do not do want he wants. They should do want he wants solely because he wants it done. Never mind the fact that their punishment already awaits them.

Hypocrisy.

All of the coalition has done the same thing. They are all equally guilty.

You attacked two, citing the reason for your attack as 'they are guilty and should surrender to us'. You leave the others.

Now, I will ask my question [i]again[/i]. Try to respond without attempting to reduce my ethos.

Why IRON and DAWN?



Thanks for trying to avoid the point. When he gets into range, I expect you to declare on him. You already said you would. He shouldn't have to do all the work.





You continue to try and paint everyone else in this thread as a disconnected and ignorant idiot. They aren't.
[/quote]


Paying reps is incomparable to "going to jail" so don't bother with that line of reasoning.
However, since you brought it up.... we're obstructing you from walking away and paying cash bribes rather than any viable allocution of your actions.
Now.... you would have us leave the criminals (your words) we're obstructing to chase down others we have never met.


And, as for my painting "everyone else"... sorry for the hyperbole. Not all of them are disconnected and/or ignorant, just most of them.

Edited June 14, 2010 by Matthew PK

[Gamemaster1]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='13 June 2010 - 11:43 PM' timestamp='1276486987' post='2336764']
Paying reps is incomparable to "going to jail" so don't bother with that line of reasoning.
However, since you brought it up.... we're obstructing you from walking away and paying cash bribes rather than any viable allocution of your actions.
[/quote]

As with any analogy, it has certain failures. Reps and terms are the functional equivalent of a CN jail. And I used criminal because you perceive us as such.

Actually, come to think of it, what the heck is a viable allocation that you would accept?

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='13 June 2010 - 11:43 PM' timestamp='1276486987' post='2336764']Now.... you would have us leave the criminals (your words) we're obstructing to chase down others we have never met.[/quote]
Yet, you clearly have met at least TOP. You [i]were[/i] allies with them.

But yet [i]again[/i], you ignored my question.

Why. IRON. And. DAWN.

Edited June 14, 2010 by Gamemaster1

[Baldr]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='13 June 2010 - 10:43 PM' timestamp='1276486987' post='2336764']
There is a clear path to peace.
It has been outlined many times.[/quote]

Yes. Unconditional Surrender.

But you aren't going to get that. Even if IRON were losing this war, they would be foolish to agree to that. And they aren't losing.

[quote]You don't see even the slightest bit of irony in that?[/quote]

You've been completely unreasonable. Nothing you say can be trusted. You twist words around and yell about how "dictionary meanings don't matter". You call people ignorant for not agreeing with you.

You've given them two choices. Unconditional surrender, or war. They've chosen war.

The longer you keep them in war, the more you call them criminals and cowards and similar, the more insulting you are, the more you are going to find that members of IRON are going to want you destroyed. I don't blame them a bit.

IMO, they've gone gone above and beyond by offering white peace, considering you declared on them and have been unreasonable and insulting for months. I'm not at all surprised that some of their members think white peace should be taken off the table. I don't think you deserve it at this point myself.

Regardless, as long as you stick to your "unconditional surrender or war forever" plan, war will continue. And that *does* end with your nations destroyed, ZI'd, out of tech, etc.

Smoking craters, reminders of a once well respected alliance.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Baldr' date='13 June 2010 - 09:32 PM' timestamp='1276489925' post='2336851']
You've been completely unreasonable. Nothing you say can be trusted. You twist words around and yell about how "dictionary meanings don't matter". You call people ignorant for not agreeing with you.[/quote]

I certainly have not called people ignorant simply for their disagreeing with me. Moreso for their unwillingness to actually listen to what I'm saying and respond in turn.
Furthermore, regarding this "dictionary debate" issue... I don't care what word you choose to call the process we want.
So Typo can go on and on all day about how what The Gremlins is demanding isn't "unconditional surrender" and it won't change what we're demanding.

I have outlined ad nauseum precisely the process The Gremlins will follow.
I haven't twisted a single thing. If you don't want to call it what I call it.... so what? That is certainly not my "twisting" anything and it's certainly not dishonest.
You're (that's the collective "you") getting hung up on a word, not me. I'm insisting on a [b]process[/b] (which you think leads to slavery, but at least you're not arguing about a definition) and the [b]process[/b] is independent of any naming convention.

[quote]You've given them two choices. Unconditional surrender, or war. They've chosen war.[/quote]

That's their choice to make.

[quote]The longer you keep them in war, the more you call them criminals and cowards and similar, the more insulting you are, the more you are going to find that members of IRON are going to want you destroyed. I don't blame them a bit. [/quote]

You said yourself that they've chosen war. Don't complain when war takes time and has penalties. I wish IRON didn't choose war; I wish they'd take the very simple and responsible path to accepting consequences of their actions. But they haven't yet... so we're at war... and who is doing the bawwww'ing?
Certainly not GRE.

[quote]IMO, they've gone gone above and beyond by offering white peace, considering you declared on them and have been unreasonable and insulting for months. I'm not at all surprised that some of their members think white peace should be taken off the table. I don't think you deserve it at this point myself. [/quote]

There is nothing unreasonable about wanting them to accept the consequences of their actions.

[quote]Regardless, as long as you stick to your "unconditional surrender or war forever" plan, war will continue. And that *does* end with your nations destroyed, ZI'd, out of tech, etc. [/quote]

Perhaps so, but that's an unfortunate side-effect of long term wars and certainly not something anybody should "want"
You'll have to forgive me for not being bloodthirsty

[quote]Smoking craters, reminders of a once well respected alliance.
[/quote]

Remember how for a long time people were posting in this thread about how GRE was "dishonorable" by declaring wars without CB's like that against Polar?
Yeah... it's funny the crickets now that people remembered The Gremlins' leaders who mades those choices are the "idols" that you seem to want to compare us to as some sad paling remainder.
Where are all "the old 'real' Gremlins" now who crawled out of the woodwork to take their jabs at us?
They're enjoying praise and avoiding criticism.

[Kalasin]

The only question is why Gramlins haven't backed down like they've never backed down before, and accepted white peace. I mean, Ramirus doesn't come across as the brightest chap, but surely he can realise this is a PR disaster......

[quote name='bakamitai' date='13 June 2010 - 07:55 PM' timestamp='1276480492' post='2336621']
Agreed. On that note, I have a suggestion for Mr. PK's "publicity photograph":

[img]http://sportsmed.starwave.com/i/magazine/new/iraq_minister.jpg[/img]
[/quote]

Bahahaha.

[Derantol]

[quote name='Banksy' date='13 June 2010 - 06:39 PM' timestamp='1276479564' post='2336602']
So the NPO wouldn't be willing to help a treaty partner out if the conflict had already started? Interesting.

I always thought wars were won by, you know, winning. IRON and Gremlins are at a standstill as IRON can't engage with Gremlin's upper tier. I'm sure IRON wouldn't say no to a bit of help.


Yes, the NPO are under surrender terms right now and cannot declare war, how silly of me
[/quote]

Thanks, but if you're going to call people out, at least try to call out those actually involved. I know I still like to hear about the NPO... right? Hm... wait a minute...

As far as the on-topic comment, I thought it was pretty clear that IRON is actually gradually winning. MPK is so kind as to point out over and over that it has nothing to do with us, which is more or less accurate, but the fact remains that we are winning. And at this point, there's no point in bringing in extra help, except in the form of individual nations who wish to fight under our banner.

On that note... MPK, when did our military prowess become our line? I mean, I think it was discussed several dozen pages back, but it was pretty quickly determined that we weren't doing nearly as much as your own policies were. Then again, it appears that at this rate, we don't need to. Either way, us stating that we're winning definitely does not equate to us strutting about attempting to flaunt our military skill.

And, at Kalasin; Ramirus actually does seem rather intelligent, as I've had some personal correspondence with him lately. That said, he's made two key miscalculations, in my mind. We disagree on one of these, but his first miscalculation is that IRON would participate in his process, given how it has been named *and* how it has been described. The second (the one we disagree on) is the importance of PR. This is a political game, and as such, you have to hold the respect of people around you, however you manage to do that.

Finally, back to MPK; I understand the short-term goals here. You guys want to end the war with IRON on your terms, and those terms will somehow change the post-war conditions in such a way that the cycle of war that IRON and Gre have (all two of them) will end. However, I get the feeling that there's a broader long-term goal in mind that at this point will outlive the Gre AA. I have an idea of what that goal is, but I have no idea how you're planning on getting there. Could you elaborate in as detailed manner as you think you can? I just fail to see how you will get to where you'd like to go after Gre and IRON stop going to war with each other.

Ram, feel free to field this one yourself, too.

[Banksy]

[quote name='Derantol' date='14 June 2010 - 06:20 PM' timestamp='1276492808' post='2336914']
Thanks, but if you're going to call people out, at least try to call out those actually involved.[/quote]
Thanks, but if you're going to try and call someone out for a post, at least try to read what the post was referring to.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Derantol' date='13 June 2010 - 10:20 PM' timestamp='1276492808' post='2336914']
On that note... MPK, when did our military prowess become our line? I mean, I think it was discussed several dozen pages back, but it was pretty quickly determined that we weren't doing nearly as much as your own policies were. Then again, it appears that at this rate, we don't need to. Either way, us stating that we're winning definitely does not equate to us strutting about attempting to flaunt our military skill.[/quote]

I agree, and it hasn't been any "official" IRON position.
Particulaly in the post (I think) you're referring to, I was responding to a particular member of DAWN who was behaving the carcicature of some returning conqueror.

This forum doesn't really offer a clean way to separate the specific "you" from the collective "you."

[quote]And, at Kalasin; Ramirus actually does seem rather intelligent, as I've had some personal correspondence with him lately. That said, he's made two key miscalculations, in my mind. We disagree on one of these, but his first miscalculation is that [b]IRON would participate in his process, given how it has been named *and* how it has been described.[/b] The second (the one we disagree on) is the importance of PR. This is a political game, and as such, you have to hold the respect of people around you, however you manage to do that.[/quote]

Emphasis mine.
Certainly IRON may still choose to decline the process as outlined. But it cannot be said that effort wasn't put forth to clarify the position for you extensively.
I should hope that if you do, in fact, choose war over accountability (sorry, the jab was too easy) that it won't be because you have some concerns based on the misinformation parroted by OWF trolls.

[quote]Finally, back to MPK; I understand the short-term goals here. You guys want to end the war with IRON on your terms, and those terms will somehow change the post-war conditions in such a way that the cycle of war that IRON and Gre have (all two of them) will end. However, I get the feeling that there's a broader long-term goal in mind that at this point will outlive the Gre AA. I have an idea of what that goal is, but I have no idea how you're planning on getting there. Could you elaborate in as detailed manner as you think you can? I just fail to see how you will get to where you'd like to go after Gre and IRON stop going to war with each other.[/quote]

In my opinion, it begins with personal accountability. IRON's adherence to the process we've outlined is a "beyond reasonable doubt" submission to the fact that IRON is willing to accept accountability and the consequences of their actions.
I think you can see how such would be a concern given that many IRON members here and abroad have expressed a sense of accomplishment rather than contrition for how IRON chose to initiate their conflit.
Now, as I've said, I do not expect any "apology" nor would I care how IRON "feels" about this.
Any demand for a control over your emotions is asinine and the results could never be held as valid.


To the contrary, it would certainly be possible for IRON to accept their own actions here and acknowledge their "wrong" nature.
Whether or not you "regret" them is irrelevant to me, personally.

And we're back to the commonly repeated question... "but [b]why[/b] should IRON surrender unconditionally?"
And I'll repeat the answer: because it's the right thing to do.
One becoming accountable does not place conditions on their submission.
This isn't "I am culpable but only if you agree to X"
Accountability [b]is[/b] unconditional.

[quote]Ram, feel free to field this one yourself, too.
[/quote]
Best of luck with that one

[Derantol]

[quote name='Banksy' date='13 June 2010 - 10:30 PM' timestamp='1276493422' post='2336921']
Thanks, but if you're going to try and call someone out for a post, at least try to read what the post was referring to.
[/quote]

You were making a speculation about whether or not the NPO would come to someone's aid if they were at war while they signed a treaty, no? That, in turn came from a rhetorical (or at least I thought it was rhetorical) question about retroactive treaties, which came from speculation as to why NPO and IRON hadn't signed an MDP, which came from a comment Moo made about not wanting to be involved. That's a few steps down a road that doesn't have much to do with IRON and Gre being at war; it certainly doesn't take a part in the arguing back and forth about the morality of IRON's actions and Gre's demands.

I believe I understand what the post was referring to, and that is precisely why I called it out. Correct me if I'm wrong... but quote chains are pretty clear trails to evidence.

My apologies for the sarcasm there, though. That wasn't really necessary.

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='13 June 2010 - 09:29 PM' timestamp='1276478932' post='2336591']
I'll make you a deal: You keep throwing the excuses and the dictionary arguments and I'll keep repeating that you're wrong and that you're deliberately misrepresenting our actions.
[/quote]

You are trying to make it seem like my correcting your definitions would be a fallacious argument of some kind, its not. When I tell you the word you are using does not describe the process you have enumerated it is not an attack upon you or your stated goals, its simply the truth. I'm not debating what process you've stated you desire I'm telling you you are using the wrong word and should get a new one. Because precision and accuracy are important and potential for misunderstandings are minimized that way.

I'm sorry you are taking my factual corrections on the nature of the English language personally, I assure you I'm not talking your misuse of my language personally, rather I consider your state worthy of pity, the first third of this thread revolved around misunderstandings of what Gre was actually after. Imagine how much potential progress we've lost simply due to your own inadequacies of language?

[quote]
Then, all along the thread, I'll continue to appropriate answer anybody fielding actual questions.
[/quote]

Err you mean appropriately right?

Regardless, several people have already pointed out your pattern of dancing around the truly probing questions, or in several cases outright ignoring posts, Several of mine have involved calling you out on it. I don't think you are fooling anybody about the nature of your discourse. You are empowered to tote the party line and nothing more. Which is a pity since they won't even be straight with you about what the party line is, here you are stuck arguing about how you don't want an apology while Ramirus is point blank telling people he does, alas.

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='13 June 2010 - 11:43 PM' timestamp='1276486987' post='2336764']
And, as for my painting "everyone else"... sorry for the hyperbole. Not all of them are disconnected and/or ignorant, just most of them.
[/quote]

Tell me sir, when one man stands up and insists something ridiculous and one hundred men show up to tell him hes full of, who has the problem, the lone nut or the one hundred men who insist on telling the lone man hes being foolish?

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='14 June 2010 - 01:03 AM' timestamp='1276491815' post='2336901']
I certainly have not called people ignorant simply for their disagreeing with me. Moreso for their unwillingness to actually listen to what I'm saying and respond in turn.
[/quote]

I read the above and what it says is "I don't like what you are saying so I'm going to ignore you *fingers in ears* LALALALALA"

[quote]
Furthermore, regarding this "dictionary debate" issue... I don't care what word you choose to call the process we want.
So Typo can go on and on all day about how what The Gremlins is demanding isn't "unconditional surrender" and it won't change what we're demanding.
[/quote]

Since an actually process was recently outlined for the first time, we can with certainty say that you are indeed not seeking unconditional surrender, the process you are after is a bastardized version of such that retains all of its bad points and none of its good points making your desire for it all the more baffling. I'm not sure what to call it without use of pejoratives.

[quote]
I have outlined ad nauseum precisely the process The Gremlins will follow.
[/quote]

You have outlined it precisely ONCE in this thread, for a long time you outright refused to outline it.

[quote]
I haven't twisted a single thing. If you don't want to call it what I call it.... so what? That is certainly not my "twisting" anything and it's certainly not dishonest.
[/quote]

The useage of the English language is not something decided by committee either you are using it correctly or you are not. You are not.

Edit: ran outta quotes again dammit. Need more!

Edited June 14, 2010 by TypoNinja