The New Grämlins

[wenwillthisend]

[quote name='SynthFG' date='10 July 2010 - 07:45 AM' timestamp='1278711925' post='2365178']


The reason this game is getting dull is that nobody can run a decent cold war any-more, especially on your side, In one swift move over the new year TOP gov managed to push Gre FOK and MHA away which then led to the collapse of Cit, moves which destroyed the balance of power to your detriment, yet your gov still pushed all in on a pair of 4's
[/quote]

Sorry Synth, Ram played the biggest role in Cit's collapse followed close by Crymson. They were each others worst enemy then and now. Ram has had a dislike for TOP for a very long time and getting .Gov helped him to break the friendship that had been around for a long time. I know as I was there and tried to help re-build that friendship. It became clear to me that Crymson was not interested when he replied to only 1 pm sent to him by me about trying to fix the friendship.


[quote name='Crymson' date='12 July 2010 - 11:32 AM' timestamp='1278898337' post='2367536']
Hahaha. Wow... did you get all of your information on that war from Ramirus? I think you did.
[/quote]

I would not trust a single word that comes from Ram's mouth. At one point he was staying in this war in the hopes that TOP would step in to protect IRON just so Ram could attack TOP. When that failed he changed the reason GRE stayed at war.


[quote name='Aeternos Astramora' date='12 July 2010 - 04:49 PM' timestamp='1278917341' post='2367872']
Gre started the collapse of Citadel in the Worst War Ever. That much is pretty certain.
[/quote]
Gre Started that when Ram got in power


[quote name='Il Impero Romano' date='12 July 2010 - 07:12 PM' timestamp='1278925925' post='2367943']
They dipped under a million NS tonight, so seeing as they haven't showed signs of cutting it out before hitting that low there is a good chance they are going to see it all the way through.

Interesting question...what then? 18 Nations sit at 0 infra, 5k tech, and a state of war while talking to themselves in the funny farm for all eternity by their own choice? Seems like plant bob's version of purgatory, but for wackjobs.
[/quote]

The remaining members of GRE will fight till they having nothing left to fight with, they will go to ZI and ZT (zero tech) they feel no remorse for this war. Ram see's IRON as public enemy number 1 and he will stop at nothing till they are destroyed. Yes he has failed this time, but he will try again.


Now I do not have logs to post as my PC crash and I couldn't save a thing. But if you really want to know more, I may tell what I can, if I like you

[Bob Janova]

[quote]My god, still this crap?

Delta already pointed this out to you, but I'll do it again:
With FOK, the sides at that time were about even, perhaps the most even fight Planet Bob would've ever seen. [/quote]
Sorry to bring this back up but I've not been on for a day or two. My point is simply that the war stopped being a small localised conflict when you jumped in (which is why you were under serious pressure not to do so). And I disagree, the NS would have been about even, but FOK was a far better fighting machine than Polar, in my opinion. But even if that part is accurate, by launching a non-mandated attack that would have (at the very least) done Polar a lot of damage made it inevitable that their allies would protect them and caused the war to go global.

And it's rather sad to see my Citadel brothers fighting in public like this

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Crymson' date='12 July 2010 - 07:41 PM' timestamp='1278988868' post='2368884']
Do you actually expect anyone to believe this?

Also, are you vision-capable enough to realize that Ram was the #1 reason the Citadel went under? With him effectively at the helm of the Gramlins, none of us could rely on you, trust you, share any information with you, or even have civil dialogue with you. The governments of Argent, Umbrella and TOP simply stopped sharing opsec-level information with you guys, because we knew that Ramirus would leak it whenever it suited his purposes. He created an atmosphere of distrust and tension in the Citadel to the point that the bloc was utterly dysfunctional. In the past the bloc had always seen a ton of arguing, but we knew that we would [b]always[/b] have each other's backs. Ram changed that. And because of him, the Citadel was already ruined long before the Gramlins left. Oddly enough, you guys constantly denied that he did anything wrong and repeatedly refused to admit that he was having any bad effects on relations. It was reminiscent of a state of denial.

While you should feel free to argue this, bear in mind that it would be rather silly to do so, as the above is how the rest of us in the bloc felt.

FYI, the vote to end the Citadel went up before TOP entered the war.



It was well before that.



ROFL. Did you get this propaganda straight from the mouth of Ramirus? I'm almost sure you did. It's not surprising, given that such seems to be a trend for you.

FACT: We were angry that you attacked IRON during the Karma War; your senior members and government knew it, they knew they'd committed an unambiguous affront to us, and they were extremely apologetic. Things calmed down fairly quickly, and relations were fine until Ramirus came to power.
FACT: Your claim about TOP wanting "world domination" makes you sound pretty funny. I'm fairly certain it's what Ramirus taught you to think.
FACT: Your claim that we saw the Citadel as "vassals" is also almost certainly Ramirus-speak. Oh, excuse me; I'm absolutely certain it is. It's what he constantly said in his diatribes against TOP.
FACT: Ramirus, not the treaty web, was the #1 reason the Citadel declined and was ABSOLUTELY the #1 reason that relations between the Gramlins and TOP declined.

You're hopeless, Synth. Learn to have some self-respect and to think for yourself, man. Sheesh.
[/quote]

FACT: When I attempted to discuss my issues with TOP on the TPF incident you personally began namecalling and suppressing dialogue.
FACT: When TOP members went rogue on GRE, and other TOP members aided them during those wars while still flying the TOP AA, TOP welcomed them back with open arms and you personally instructed me not to discuss it with TOP members.

[quote name='crazy canuck' date='12 July 2010 - 07:53 PM' timestamp='1278989619' post='2368900']
I agree - even though some of your criticism may have been directed at me.

The only reason I entered the fray on that point is that Matthew seemed to be trying to tie his current predicament into some "selfless act" Gre commited to try to "save" TOP in what has now become the mists of time. That is why I encouraged him to just step up to the plate and take the hit. No amout of revisionism can save him and Gre now. The only honourable thing left to that alliance is to acknowledge they made a monumental miscalculation and stop trying to brazen their way through it.
[/quote]


I have no interest in tying the current situation to TOP.
IRON brought up that GRE tried to get them to backstab TOP; and I corrected them because their explanation misrepresented the situation.
It has nothing to do with what's going on right now; we should stop discussing it.

As for what's going on now, I have already stated that I miscalculated how many people would misunderstand and/or deliberately misrepresent what we're demanding.
That doesn't make our intentions malicious nor our goal unjust.

[quote name='wenwillthisend' date='13 July 2010 - 03:43 AM' timestamp='1279017764' post='2369199']
I would not trust a single word that comes from Ram's mouth. At one point he was staying in this war in the hopes that TOP would step in to protect IRON just so Ram could attack TOP. When that failed he changed the reason GRE stayed at war.
[/quote]


That's a lie and you know it. From the beginning of this war GRE has no intent and no will to attack TOP.
It was made pretty clear at the upper-mil levels that we would not attack TOP except in response to an organized and formal declaration on their part.

Wen, I'm actually disappointed to see how you've been willing to degrade yourself just to take jabs at Ram. There are many things you could say to complain about him without resorting to deliberate misinformation such as the quoted lines.

Edited July 13, 2010 by Matthew PK

[Zangmonkey]

-snip-
sry, dbl post

Edited July 13, 2010 by Matthew PK

[Zangmonkey]

-snip-

dbl post

Edited July 13, 2010 by Matthew PK

[Broncos98]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='13 July 2010 - 10:38 AM' timestamp='1279035502' post='2369338']
As for what's going on now, I have already stated that I miscalculated how many people would misunderstand and/or deliberately misrepresent what we're demanding.
That doesn't make our intentions malicious nor our goal unjust.
[/quote]

Yeah, that's it, there is something wrong with everyone else. You have it all right, it's the world that needs fixing. You, sir, have h[sub]2[/sub]o on the gray matter.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Broncos98' date='13 July 2010 - 08:53 AM' timestamp='1279036400' post='2369353']
Yeah, that's it, there is something wrong with everyone else. You have it all right, it's the world that needs fixing. You, sir, have h[sub]2[/sub]o on the gray matter.
[/quote]

I'm suggesting "the world" has a very narrow understanding of what's going on here because it has been misrepresented repeatedly by detractors in this thread.


I'm open to your discussion about why what we're demanding is unjust or insidious in any way.
I think there are very few people who have even made an attempt to push this point. Most haven't because once they invest some time in understanding their perspective turns from opposition to apathy.

[crazy canuck]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='13 July 2010 - 08:34 AM' timestamp='1279035259' post='2369335']
I have no interest in tying the current situation to TOP...
It has nothing to do with what's going on right now; we should stop discussing it.

As for what's going on now, I have already stated that I miscalculated how many people would misunderstand and/or deliberately misrepresent what we're demanding.
That doesn't make our intentions malicious nor our goal unjust.
[/quote]


All right. Thank you for clarifying your position. I will say no more about the break down in the relationship between Gre and TOP save to say that it is one of the things I will always regret about my game experience here - that and deleting my first nation thinking at the time I didnt want to return to the game.

As for the miscalculation of others, if you are correct that people have simply misunderstood what you have been saying then you might want to reconsider the way in which you say things. I am pretty certain you demanded an unconditional surrender. I am pretty certain the vast majority of the CN community thinks that was and is a daft idea. I am not sure where there is room for misunderstanding.

I am pretty sure that Ram said he had the official agreement of CnG to an amendment he was proposing. He didnt. I am not sure where there is room for misunderstanding there either.

As I said, you might want to reconsider the way in which you say things.

[Aeternos Astramora]

[quote name='wenwillthisend' date='13 July 2010 - 05:43 AM' timestamp='1279017764' post='2369199']Sorry Synth, Ram played the biggest role in Cit's collapse followed close by Crymson. [/quote]
Probably correct.

[quote]Gre Started that when Ram got in power[/quote]
True, but I'd say it crossed the line that it couldn't come back across in the WWE.


I enjoy seeing the ugly Gre burn and only wish I could help.

[ironchef]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='13 July 2010 - 09:02 AM' timestamp='1279036920' post='2369358']
I'm suggesting "the world" has a very narrow understanding of what's going on here because it has been misrepresented repeatedly by detractors in this thread.


I'm open to your discussion about why what we're demanding is unjust or insidious in any way.
I think there are very few people who have even made an attempt to push this point. Most haven't because once they invest some time in understanding their perspective turns from opposition to apathy.
[/quote]

Your right Matthew what your demanding is in no way unjust or insidious, Its Retarded!!! Stop it!!! Just because you thought it was a good idea at the time is no reason to keep this going.

I do have some questions for you.

What is the end goal of continuing this war with IRON?

It has been made clear to you they are not going to give you what you ask for or think they should do. So why are you still at war with them?

Call me ignorant but I just don’t see how the cost of your nations and alliance is worth whatever the end result must be.
When Gre made the choice to continue the war with IRON there was a goal in mind and that goal was listed many times in this thread.

At any time did you think you would accomplish that goal or was it just a ploy to keep IRON at war?

If there was really a goal other than to keep IRON at war, now that you know your original goal will never be reached I ask you why are you still at war with them?

[wenwillthisend]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='14 July 2010 - 01:34 AM' timestamp='1279035259' post='2369335']





That's a lie and you know it. From the beginning of this war GRE has no intent and no will to attack TOP.
It was made pretty clear at the upper-mil levels that we would not attack TOP except in response to an organized and formal declaration on their part.

Wen, I'm actually disappointed to see how you've been willing to degrade yourself just to take jabs at Ram. There are many things you could say to complain about him without resorting to deliberate misinformation such as the quoted lines.
[/quote]

That's my point Matt, Ram will tell you 1 thing and then say something else to another. He cannot be trusted. GRE itself may have never had any intention of going to war with TOP, but I bet Ram did.

[Some-Guy]

[quote name='Thorgrum' date='13 July 2010 - 08:44 AM' timestamp='1279007064' post='2369138']
Changed and highlighted the relevant part, someone a few post back talked about "rewriting history", you TOP boys are pretty good at that arent you? There are still plenty of people who want their pound of flesh Crymson so keep running your mouth, please. Its nice to see the TOP propoganda machine come to life, to bad its near the end of this folly, how couragous.
[/quote]

Crymson is entitled to his views and opinions, just like anyone else.

Thorgrum, I would invite you to point out either here or in private where contemporary TOP, or her government have attempted to re-write history, if you raise a valid point I shall be happy to correct the record in public. However, should you just be mindlessly grinding an axe I shall be equally be pleased to ignore you in future as an irrelevancy.

You see TOP is more than willing to admit that we have erred at times in the past, I can give you some examples:

It was morally wrong of us to mindlessly take part in the Woodstock massacre.
It was incorrect of us to treat our former friends in Vanguard, Umbrella and Gramlins poorly because they were aligned to MK and certain other (former) friends of ours had a maniacal hatred of that alliance.
It was incorrect of us to kill off our relationship with Umbrella because of largely unfounded paranoia.
It was incorrect of us to pre-emptively strike at C&G, we should have waited for the Polar-\m/ war to pan out naturally.

(I will note that, as a group of many personalities, it does not lead that 100% of our membership concurs with all of these points)

I can also admit personal mistakes, such as my crappy conduct to my alliance and de facto allies during the Karma war.

The relevancy to this discussion is that TOP, unlike Gramlins, is an alliance that can be humble in face of our errors, be open to discussion on our past and, when needed, take action to correct matters.

Can the same be said of Gramlins great error that is the subject of this damning long topic? Can the Gramlins be humble in the face of a public unity against them, the like of which has never before been seen? Can Ramirus admit a simple truth and admit with a wry shrug that he got this judgement wrong?

Could they even take a baby step towards respectability and reveal to us the separate terms they which to impose on IRON in exchange for our agreement to amend the ESA?

I do hope so, because this world really would be a lesser place should The Gramlins cease to be, even after all this nonsense, which is a place I fear we will inevitably end.

Edited July 13, 2010 by Some-Guy

[Golan 1st]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='13 July 2010 - 07:02 PM' timestamp='1279036920' post='2369358']I'm suggesting "the world" has a very narrow understanding of what's going on here because it has been misrepresented repeatedly by detractors in this thread.


I'm open to your discussion about why what we're demanding is unjust or insidious in any way.
I think there are very few people who have even made an attempt to push this point. Most haven't because once they invest some time in understanding their perspective turns from opposition to apathy.[/quote]Matthew, I am ready to go with you on this one.
What you demanded was that we surrender, disarm (and never said exactly what you meant by that) and then negotiate peace. As you said yourself, disarmament would weaken our position in the peace negotiations. So even if what you insisted on calling unconditional surrender was acceptable, it would be silly of us to agree to begin the process you outlined. As we said from the beginning and proved right by the current condition of your alliance, you did not have the power to coerce us to accept your demands. Everybody but you seem to have realized that from the very beginning of this idiocy.
Now, let's say that your demands were justified. Did the results of this war so far helped your cause? Are you really fooled by your own propaganda to the point where you cannot see how wrong it was?
I am banging my head into the wall trying to understand why you are still fighting. The war which is killing Gramlins is no more than a minor annoyance to us at this point.
Frankly, I personally think that it would be perfectly justified to demand reparations from you for the damages caused to us since the ESA, but we are offering you the most honourable way possible out of this war, white peace. Do you really believe that you will get a better deal any time in the future?
Gramlins used to be seen as an elite alliance of mature members. Now, you made yourself a joke. There is nothing heroic or honourable in the way you choose to kill yourself. It's just pathetic.
Out of respect to what Gramlins used to represent on planet Bob, I urge you to save what can still be saved and end this war.

[JimKongIl]

Matthew_PK, you are the last of the high NS Gramlins who support eternal war. I'm guessing that time is running out for your come to Jesus moment. People on all sides are ready to see this end. You have been afforded ample opportunity to make this right.

[Crymson]

[quote name='wenwillthisend' date='13 July 2010 - 04:43 AM' timestamp='1279017764' post='2369199']
Sorry Synth, Ram played the biggest role in Cit's collapse followed close by Crymson. They were each others worst enemy then and now. Ram has had a dislike for TOP for a very long time and getting .Gov helped him to break the friendship that had been around for a long time. I know as I was there and tried to help re-build that friendship. It became clear to me that Crymson was not interested when he replied to only 1 pm sent to him by me about trying to fix the friendship.
[/quote]

You're judging my interest based on the fact that I only responded to one PM of yours in what was a busy time? Feel free to ask the TOP membership how interested I was; they'll say that I was interested, because they were interested and it was my job to do what they wanted. As for your PM, I'm sorry if the fact that I didn't respond to it made you feel I was disinterested in the matter; the fact was, however, that the relationship was already strained past the breaking point---and in any event none of you were willing to do anything about the biggest issue: Ramirus's behavior towards us. Ramirus hated us, always treated with us disrespectfully, and constantly worked against us politically, and you guys kept electing him. There wasn't much to be done, yet most of you failed to take any responsibility for electing him and failed to make any strides towards moderating his behavior.

I was willing to try to work with Ram. I tried to speak with him several times. All he told me was that he had many very bad opinions about TOP that he claimed would not change no matter what he said or did; many of these were based on incorrect information or on flawed suppositions, yet he outright refused to listen when I attempted to address them. He claimed that he was not willing to work with what he called the "leadership clique" of TOP, a fictional group whom he claimed manipulated TOP's membership and cut them off from all meaningful information. The guy had zero interest in working with us. We tried, and he responded with mindless vitriol every time. So don't try to throw this on us. It seems many of you guys are unaware of the astounding degree to which he was hostile and insensible towards us.

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='13 July 2010 - 09:34 AM' timestamp='1279035259' post='2369335']
FACT: When I attempted to discuss my issues with TOP on the TPF incident you personally began namecalling and suppressing dialogue.
[/quote]

Do you remember what you were doing? You were coming in and spreading Ram's party line. That's why nobody was interested in talking. I began namecalling? News to me, though that situation certainly didn't bring out the best in me. Whatever the case, you're really missing the point: that relationship was doomed while Ram was in power. You were one of those who would constantly say that we shouldn't let him ruin the relationship between us; you would persistently avoid any responsibility for electing him, and you'd evade any suggestion that his behavior could perhaps be moderated.

[quote]
FACT: When TOP members went rogue on GRE, and other TOP members aided them during those wars while still flying the TOP AA, TOP welcomed them back with open arms and you personally instructed me not to discuss it with TOP members.
[/quote]

You mean one TOP member? Yup, he was readmitted. That was somewhat controversial. I instructed you not to discuss it with TOP members? No, I asked you to keep it at the government level, where it belonged.

[quote]
I have no interest in tying the current situation to TOP.
IRON brought up that GRE tried to get them to backstab TOP; and I corrected them because their explanation misrepresented the situation.
[/quote]

It has been brought to your attention that nobody believes that story.

[quote]
It has nothing to do with what's going on right now; we should stop discussing it.
[/quote]

You're trying to deflect attention away from your lies.

[quote]
As for what's going on now, I have already stated that I miscalculated how many people would misunderstand and/or deliberately misrepresent what we're demanding.
That doesn't make our intentions malicious nor our goal unjust.
[/quote]

What is 'malicious' or 'unjust' is subjective. In this event, the vast majority of people who have contributed to this discussion feel that your demands are indeed unjust and malicious, and apparently the umpteen members you've lost to this situation thought so as well. I'd assume their views would be important to you.


[quote]
That's a lie and you know it. From the beginning of this war GRE has no intent and no will to attack TOP.
It was made pretty clear at the upper-mil levels that we would not attack TOP except in response to an organized and formal declaration on their part.
[/quote]

We weren't so sure at the time. And in any event, Ram was capable of just about anything, and so I don't believe you.

[quote]
Wen, I'm actually disappointed to see how you've been willing to degrade yourself just to take jabs at Ram. There are many things you could say to complain about him without resorting to deliberate misinformation such as the quoted lines.
[/quote]

Sycophancy is the order of the day for you, as usual.


[quote name='Thorgrum' date='13 July 2010 - 01:44 AM' timestamp='1279007064' post='2369138']
Changed and highlighted the relevant part, someone a few post back talked about "rewriting history", you TOP boys are pretty good at that arent you? There are still plenty of people who want their pound of flesh Crymson so keep running your mouth, please. Its nice to see the TOP propoganda machine come to life, to bad its near the end of this folly, how couragous.
[/quote]

Oooh, ouch! I'm terrified! And what an excellent post, by the way! You made no rebuttals and no logical points; you simply pointed at my post and said "wow, that's dumb and lots of people want to beat you up!" Brilliant. Will you teach me how to be so eloquent?

Bravo.

Edited July 14, 2010 by Crymson

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Golan 1st' date='13 July 2010 - 04:12 PM' timestamp='1279062725' post='2369778']
Matthew, I am ready to go with you on this one.
What you demanded was that we surrender, disarm (and never said exactly what you meant by that) and then negotiate peace. As you said yourself, disarmament would weaken our position in the peace negotiations. So even if what you insisted on calling unconditional surrender was acceptable, it would be silly of us to agree to begin the process you outlined.[/quote]

Please note that my use of "you", "your" etc refer to IRON and only secondarily to DAWN (because you have made it clear that you will remain at war as long as IRON does)
It was made clear that upon your surrender you would be quartered and receive disarmament instructions.
It would not have been silly especially considering I outlined how such a disarmament wouldn't seriously inhibit your ability to make war.
The important principle is your willingness to surrender, without negotiating your circumstances, as a means of demonstrating your desire to be accountable for your action.
You either are or you are not accountable and you should act accordingly. Accountability is outside the notion of bartering.


[quote] As we said from the beginning and proved right by the current condition of your alliance, you did not have the power to coerce us to accept your demands. Everybody but you seem to have realized that from the very beginning of this idiocy.[/quote]

Again false. I even stated on multiple occasions that I realize we never had the power to coerce you to accept our demands.
You should surrender because it is the right thing to do; not because we (or anybody else, for that matter) has the means to [b]force[/b] you to do so.
The validity of my point is completely irrelevant to the might of my army.
On the contrary, you have made it abundantly clear that you do not intend to comply because we can't "make you."
You may contend that your position is superior but given the circumstance you cannot make the case that you haven't asserted things akin to "might makes right"

[quote]Now, let's say that your demands were justified. Did the results of this war so far helped your cause? Are you really fooled by your own propaganda to the point where you cannot see how wrong it was?[/quote]

This is rather specious of you.
You have made absolutely no valid arguments to whether our cause is "right" or "wrong" only whether you think it will or will not work.

[quote]I am banging my head into the wall trying to understand why you are still fighting. The war which is killing Gramlins is no more than a minor annoyance to us at this point.[/quote]

This is really a shame.
The war should be a reminder to you that you have refused to acknowledge any culpability or wrongdoing and that [b]your only humility was at the barrel of a gun.[/b]
[b]I[/b] am banging [b]my[/b] head against the wall trying to understand why you so ferociously resist acknowledging your actions and accepting the honorable path to restitution and peace.

[quote]Frankly, I personally think that it would be perfectly justified to demand reparations from you for the damages caused to us since the ESA, but we are offering you the most honourable way possible out of this war, white peace. Do you really believe that you will get a better deal any time in the future?[/quote]

It confuses me that you don't understand why we are opposed to your white peace.
You seek to walk away from this conflict without so much as an allocution. Your leaders are very cleverly offering a white peace under the banner of "let's just agree to disagree and go our separate ways."
The problem with this is that it quite deliberately avoids the initial issue.


[quote]Gramlins used to be seen as an elite alliance of mature members. Now, you made yourself a joke. There is nothing heroic or honourable in the way you choose to kill yourself. It's just pathetic.[/quote]

Do you find it at all ironic that most of the examples people have surfaced here as our "dishonor" had been executed under the leadership of those "mature members" the typists here seem to idolize?
I would much rather have not seen my friends (and soon, myself!) go to ZI over your unwillingness to accept the easy and honorable path to peace.
I don't want to be a martyr; but I [b]do[/b] believe that we are now standing up for some of the principles that those "mature members" always [b]claimed[/b] to stand for.

[quote]Out of respect to what Gramlins used to represent on planet Bob, I urge you to save what can still be saved and end this war.
[/quote]

I urge you to act honorably and surrender to be absolved of your actions.


[quote name='JimKongIl' date='13 July 2010 - 07:58 PM' timestamp='1279076269' post='2370118']
Matthew_PK, you are the last of the high NS Gramlins who support eternal war. I'm guessing that time is running out for your come to Jesus moment. People on all sides are ready to see this end. You have been afforded ample opportunity to make this right.
[/quote]


You, sir, are wasting your time.
If you want to discuss the issue with me you will stop the posturing via the claims that I support eternal war.

Edited July 14, 2010 by Matthew PK

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Crymson' date='13 July 2010 - 08:56 PM' timestamp='1279079792' post='2370264']
Do you remember what you were doing? You were coming in and spreading Ram's party line. That's why nobody was interested in talking. I began namecalling? News to me, though that situation certainly didn't bring out the best in me. Whatever the case, you're really missing the point: that relationship was doomed while Ram was in power. You were one of those who would constantly say that we shouldn't let him ruin the relationship between us; you would persistently avoid any responsibility for electing him, and you'd evade any suggestion that his behavior could perhaps be moderated. [/quote]

Actually, many TOP members were interested in talking to me (and did just that!) because I was actually discussing the matter with them [b]at the membership level[/b] rather than waiting for backroom cloak-and-dagger nonsense and silly rumors to have their reign.
As such, you were (I believe) the first to call us cowards and/or traitors (and, to your credit, you apologized later for such behavior).
I did then, and still do believe that Ram has good ideas for direction. One simply has to get past some friendly surface abrasiveness.
You may recall that discussion was quite rekindled between GRE and TOP to levels above what had been prior to Ram's election.


[quote]You mean one TOP member? Yup, he was readmitted. That was somewhat controversial. I instructed you not to discuss it with TOP members? No, I asked you to keep it at the government level, where it belonged. [/quote]

No, I meant [b]members[/b] [url="http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=231088"]plural[/url].
It did not belong at the government level. It quite clearly belonged and the [b]membership[/b] level because the information and concerns shared with TOP.gov were ineffectively distributed to the member level. I desired a relationship with TOP membership and was quite happy with it. The disagreements were amplified by a lack of communication the membership level; and this is particularly toxic to a quasi-democracy such as that existing at TOP.
By my perspective, TOP allowed their systematic problems to be concealed by their unified aversion to Ramirus (in quite the same way that many Gremlins do so by their distaste for you).


[quote]It has been brought to your attention that nobody believes that story.
You're trying to deflect attention away from your lies. [/quote]

I think you owe me an apology.



[quote]What is 'malicious' or 'unjust' is subjective. In this event, the vast majority of people who have contributed to this discussion feel that your demands are indeed unjust and malicious, and apparently the umpteen members you've lost to this situation thought so as well. I'd assume their views would be important to you. [/quote]

I have had numerous fruitful discussions with my friends about this issue. It's much more pleasant away from the unceasing posturing presented in these forums.


[quote]We weren't so sure at the time. And in any event, Ram was capable of just about anything, and so I don't believe you. [/quote]
You give him too much credit.



[quote]Sycophancy is the order of the day for you, as usual.[/quote]

The best of friends need to tell each other when they're wrong, and the worst of enemies need to tell each other when they're right.

It's disappointing to me to see people I know are intelligent reduce themselves to some of the comments made here (and likewise, I entrust them to tell me when I have done the same)

[Derantol]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='13 July 2010 - 10:41 PM' timestamp='1279086098' post='2370560']
It confuses me that you don't understand why we are opposed to your white peace.
You seek to walk away from this conflict without so much as an allocution. Your leaders are very cleverly offering a white peace under the banner of "let's just agree to disagree and go our separate ways."
The problem with this is that it quite deliberately avoids the initial issue.
[/quote]

I firmly disagree that it avoids the initial issue.

You are trying to tell us that what we did was morally wrong.
We're trying to tell you that what we did was morally neutral at worst.

You're offering an amendment to the ESA because you think what we did was morally wrong.
We're offering white peace because we believe that what we did was morally neutral.

You believe we're avoiding allocution because we did something morally wrong.
We believe that we don't need to answer for anything (morally) because we haven't done anything morally wrong.


To clarify, as far as that last set is concerned, we are already answering for the preemptive strike (and the war at all, really) to CnG and others. Gre is the only one concerned with morals, though, so these statements envelop the Gre-IRON war and the morality of hitting their friends.


So, do you see how we're simply dealing with the situation differently? We're not trying to avoid allocution; we sincerely believe that we've already answered for everything we need to. The way we see it, it's as if we punched a guy in the face and got beaten up for it, and then got it dealt with in court (to our detriment), and then (here's where you guys come in) another guy comes up and tries to tell us that we need to go to that other guy and say [i]really[/i] sweetly, "I'm sorry, I really shouldn't have punched you in the face," because that guy is upset that we punched his friend and apparently "got away with it" by "bribing" him. That first guy, the guy we punched in the face, wasn't particularly interested in an apology then and doesn't appear to care about one now, either. So we're all satisfied here, except for you, who has come over (initially quite threateningly) to do what you say "or else."

I hope that wasn't too convoluted, and I hope people were able to follow that. If needed, I'll go back and label people better.

Anyway, that "agree to disagree" bit is probably true, because we've abandoned all hope of convincing you guys that we didn't do something wrong. We want to get on with our lives. Don't you? Heck, if we can get peace going here, maybe you and I and those still interested can sit down and actually have a real discussion about whether or not what we did was wrong while trying to avoid all the other stuff that has been dragged in here.

Tell you what; if you want, once all this stuff is finished, you and I can trade informal "academic" papers arguing exactly what it was that IRON did and why it was so wrong. I wouldn't want a simple "You attacked our friends" answer because almost everyone has friends that have been attacked for one reason or another by almost everyone else. Are you up for it?

[The Warrior]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='14 July 2010 - 06:41 AM' timestamp='1279086098' post='2370560']
This is really a shame.
The war should be a reminder to you that you have refused to acknowledge any culpability or wrongdoing and that [b]your only humility was at the barrel of a gun.[/b]
[b]I[/b] am banging [b]my[/b] head against the wall trying to understand why you so ferociously resist acknowledging your actions and accepting the honorable path to restitution and peace.
[/quote]

As you have stated yourself, we are not going to "acknowledge our actions and accept an honorable path to peace" because we do not feel that we need to. This is where we need to agree to disagree.

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='14 July 2010 - 06:41 AM' timestamp='1279086098' post='2370560']
It confuses me that you don't understand why we are opposed to your white peace.
You seek to walk away from this conflict without so much as an allocution. Your leaders are very cleverly offering a white peace under the banner of "let's just agree to disagree and go our separate ways."
The problem with this is that it quite deliberately avoids the initial issue.[/quote]

We are not seeking to walk away without so much as an allocution. We disagree with you. Plain and simple. You are not going to get what you want. We thought that had been quite clear for about two months now. Agreeing to disagree and dying are the only options that you have left. I think we can all see that you have chosen the latter.

Edited July 14, 2010 by The Warrior

[Golan 1st]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='14 July 2010 - 08:41 AM' timestamp='1279086098' post='2370560']
Please note that my use of "you", "your" etc refer to IRON and only secondarily to DAWN (because you have made it clear that you will remain at war as long as IRON does)
It was made clear that upon your surrender you would be quartered and receive disarmament instructions.
It would not have been silly especially considering I outlined how such a disarmament wouldn't seriously inhibit your ability to make war.
The important principle is your willingness to surrender, without negotiating your circumstances, as a means of demonstrating your desire to be accountable for your action.
You either are or you are not accountable and you should act accordingly. Accountability is outside the notion of bartering.[/quote]You make me return to arguing about the definition of words. I think it is completely pointless, but it is necessary to explain why we wouldn't surrender.
Surrender does not equal to accountability. By surrendering you don't admit wrong, you admit defeat.
The result of this war is not exactly a crashing defeat for us.

[quote]Again false. I even stated on multiple occasions that I realize we never had the power to coerce you to accept our demands.
You should surrender because it is the right thing to do; not because we (or anybody else, for that matter) has the means to [b]force[/b] you to do so.
The validity of my point is completely irrelevant to the might of my army.
On the contrary, you have made it abundantly clear that you do not intend to comply because we can't "make you."
You may contend that your position is superior but given the circumstance you cannot make the case that you haven't asserted things akin to "might makes right"[/quote]We would never accept unconditional surrender not because by the definition accepted by everybody but you on planet Bob, this is harsh and humiliating. I would keep my nation alive at PZI, if necessary, and not do that.
This has little to do with might.
You demanding this when you are the weaker side only made your lunacy more evident and prevented you from making your demand worth a serious consideration, thank God.

[quote]This is rather specious of you.
You have made absolutely no valid arguments to whether our cause is "right" or "wrong" only whether you think it will or will not work.[/quote]
You missed the point, but it may be a problem of how I put things. By wrong I mean that it was a mistake, not morally wrong (though I think that it was morally wrong too).
What I meant is that, regardless of whether you were justified, your failure made a bad service to the idea of demanding accountability from "criminals" because you are being destroyed trying to do that.

[quote]This is really a shame.
The war should be a reminder to you that you have refused to acknowledge any culpability or wrongdoing and that [b]your only humility was at the barrel of a gun.[/b]
[b]I[/b] am banging [b]my[/b] head against the wall trying to understand why you so ferociously resist acknowledging your actions and accepting the honorable path to restitution and peace.[/quote]
We don't think that it is your position to demand "restitution" from us and we have the might to stand against this.


[quote]It confuses me that you don't understand why we are opposed to your white peace.
You seek to walk away from this conflict without so much as an allocution. Your leaders are very cleverly offering a white peace under the banner of "let's just agree to disagree and go our separate ways."
The problem with this is that it quite deliberately avoids the initial issue.[/quote]I understand why you don't think that white peace is a good result of this war. What I fail to understand is what better result you still think you can get.

[quote]Do you find it at all ironic that most of the examples people have surfaced here as our "dishonor" had been executed under the leadership of those "mature members" the typists here seem to idolize?
I would much rather have not seen my friends (and soon, myself!) go to ZI over your unwillingness to accept the easy and honorable path to peace.
I don't want to be a martyr; but I [b]do[/b] believe that we are now standing up for some of the principles that those "mature members" always [b]claimed[/b] to stand for.[/quote]You are willing to go to ZI and have your alliance destroyed and not accept our offer, which is seen by most as a reasonable fair settlement of this conflict.
Since it should be clear even to you at this point that we won't accept YOUR "easy and honourable path to peace", you leave us no other choice, then.
And, no, nobody but yourself sees you as a martyr. You are looking like a person who is ready to die because his pride does not let him admit his evident mistake.


[quote]I urge you to act honorably and surrender to be absolved of your actions.[/quote]Thanks for the advice, but I don't think I will take it

Edited July 14, 2010 by Golan 1st

[Bob Janova]

Clearly, in order to be totally sincere and receive holy absolution, IRON should surrender to a totally uninvolved party

[quote]I don't want to be a martyr; but I do believe that we are now standing up for some of the principles that those "mature members" always claimed to stand for.[/quote]
This sentence wonderfully illustrates just how deluded the remaining few active members have become.

[Glen MoP]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='14 July 2010 - 06:41 AM' timestamp='1279086098' post='2370560']I urge you to act honorably and surrender to be absolved of your actions.[/quote]

I'm still not clear on this part. By what authority do you offer absolution? In religion, absolution comes from a higher power. For example, in Christianity it comes from God with the confessor merely acting as His agent. Are you claiming to be an avatar of some higher power? If not, where does your moral authority to grant absolution come from?

[Broncos98]

Didn't you get the memo, Glen? Ram is his God, and Matthew is here to spread Ram's word. Ram is currently enjoying his last supper in CN, and soon his apostles will suffer the same fate.

[Golan 1st]

[quote name='Glen MoP' date='14 July 2010 - 02:33 PM' timestamp='1279107178' post='2370758']I'm still not clear on this part. By what authority do you offer absolution? In religion, absolution comes from a higher power. For example, in Christianity it comes from God with the confessor merely acting as His agent. Are you claiming to be an avatar of some higher power? If not, where does your moral authority to grant absolution come from?[/quote]LOL
I wondered about that myself, but I think that the problem here is poor wording.
I am actually supportive, in principle, of enforcing moral standards and, in the absence of a widely accepted moral authority on this planet, one has to decide for himself what values are worth fighting for. In that sense, and for the sake of this discussion I will assume that Gramlins are sincere in seeing us as criminals, I think that they were doing the right thing from their point of view.
There are, however, major flaws in Gramlins actions:
1. There is no way to enforce guilt feelings by force. Any statement in that direction made under threat or actual force cannot be trusted to be sincere. There is no way around it and I am unable to understand why Gramlins thought that an admit of guilt enforced by them is in any way better than getting that with the ESA, when it was actually possible. The best you can hope for, unless the offender voluntarily, free of any threat, admits wrong doing, is to punish the offender. That, if you accept Gramlins' judgment of our actions in the beginning of the war, was accomplished in the beating we took in the war and in the reparation agreed upon in the ESA.
2. I am not saying that the majority is necessarily always right, but the very massive support we get even from people and alliances who could be expected to naturally be more supportive of Gramlins suggests that our actions, even if morally questionable, are not extreme enough for us to serve as the example Gramlins tried to set. Considering some widely recognized atrocities that went unpunished, Gramlins' crusade seemed, at best, disproportional to the magnitude of our "crimes", even by those who see our actions in a negative light.
3. Gramlins, as was clear from the beginning to everybody but themselves, did not have the power to achieve their goal. Therefore, even if we accept the moral justification for their actions (which I don't), it was self defeating because the "criminals" beat the good guys. This does not set a good precedent to anyone who may consider, at some point in the future, to enforce moral standards.

[JimKongIl]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='14 July 2010 - 12:41 AM' timestamp='1279086098' post='2370560']
You, sir, are wasting your time.
If you want to discuss the issue with me you will stop the posturing via the claims that I support eternal war.
[/quote]


We have been discussing in this thread since March. It doesn't seem to be working.