The New Grämlins

[Ashoka the Great]

[quote name='Ertyy' date='02 May 2010 - 12:31 PM' timestamp='1272817888' post='2283849']IRON gets to see the terms as a reward for unconditional surrender.[/quote]

I think Gramlins' reward for not revealing the terms is a far better incentive for IRON to remain silent.

You see, in return for not talking to IRON, Gramlins gets to bleed old members while a bunch of new members feel like complete saps for volunteering to be your low-end meatshields.

IRON would be foolish not to take this deal.

Oh wait....they [i]have[/i] taken it.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='amad123' date='03 May 2010 - 11:42 AM' timestamp='1272912127' post='2285168']
So just to clarify, all IRON and DAWN have to do is say they "Surrender" and Gramlins will then advise them of all of the rest of the peace terms and if we don't like them we can resume hostilities?

We did say we "Surrendered" previously and you withdrew the terms. Why the sudden change of heart?
[/quote]

If you didn't like the terms, how could we possibly force you to comply?

The terms to which you "surrendered" were old and/or not official terms.
I'm sorry that GRE sometimes forget that individuals need to say "This is my opinion, not official policy" every 10 seconds.
If it aint signed by the conclave and made by majority vote then it aint official.
This is not a new concept.

Even BobJ, who has been outspoken against GRE in this thread, acknowledges that VD's comments should not have been taken as an official GRE conclave position.
Again, I'm sorry for the confusion about that. It's not as if I gain anything.

[shilo]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='03 May 2010 - 09:02 PM' timestamp='1272909731' post='2285142']
Like I said, we demand the unconditional surrender. If the next step is demilitarization then so be it.
But that is in complete opposition to the idiotic claim of many OWF posters that we're demanding demilitarization before we accept the surrender but won't tell you how to do it ZOMG ETERNAL WARZ!
[/quote]

[quote]04[19:47] <VonDroz|Gre> it's my intention and vehement policy to continue the fight until IRON is prepared to unconditionally surrender and disarm, admitting defeat, at which point we may certainly discuss terms[/quote]

Yes, we have to surrender and disarm ourselves completely, at which point we would have weakened our position severely militarily, not to mention the fact that we would not have the right to go back to war since unconditional surrender implies accepting everything you give us.

There is no going back to war after because
1) peace mode nations aren't in pm anymore, we will have no nukes left, you would be able to quickly crush IRON's top tier, use the chance to get all your lower and mid tier nations into pm, pretty much leave us no option to fight back even if we wanted to, while also giving you the chance to fight where you clearly outnumber us
2) because we previously accepted by surrendering without conditions that you can do to us what you want without us having the right to go back to war

So if we don't like the terms, it's not relevant cause our opinion of the terms has no influence on us having to comply to them anyways, and fighting back would be futile anyways.

[Stetson76]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='03 May 2010 - 10:53 AM' timestamp='1272902004' post='2285037']
Demilitarization was never a term of surrender. GRE has never asked them to demilitarize before they can surrender. Not ever.

*After* they surrender, I *suspect* they will be told to demilitarize. And, as I have stated repeatedly, I am speaking from my opinion and personally rather than from any position of authority.
[/quote]

Wow, you have a very warped sense of how the word 'and' works. Just switching the order of the words around when dealing with non-linear statement does not help your position. 'And' is a concurrent conjunction so in other words, (to assist your reading comprehension) both words joined by the conjunction 'and' happen at the same time.

In anticipation of your next round of "but it's only my opinion", I did go back and grab these logs which in over 50 pages since their post no one has challenged the validity of:

[quote][17:38] <RamirusMaximus|GRE> Tell Peron that it doesn't really matter how many different people he sends over to query me (or who do it on their own).
[17:38] <RamirusMaximus|GRE> I have nothing to say to IRON until you surrender and lay down your arms.[/quote]

Again, that pesky 'and'.

Anyway, I hope that helps fill in your suspicions so you can change your story back to IRON/DAWN having to demilitarize at the same time they surrender as opposed to this new trial balloon you're floating that they can just surrender and [b]then, maybe[/b] disarm.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Stetson' date='03 May 2010 - 01:42 PM' timestamp='1272919344' post='2285259']
Wow, you have a very warped sense of how the word 'and' works. Just switching the order of the words around when dealing with non-linear statement does not help your position. 'And' is a concurrent conjunction so in other words, (to assist your reading comprehension) both words joined by the conjunction 'and' happen at the same time.

In anticipation of your next round of "but it's only my opinion", I did go back and grab these logs which in over 50 pages since their post no one has challenged the validity of:



Again, that pesky 'and'.

Anyway, I hope that helps fill in your suspicions so you can change your story back to IRON/DAWN having to demilitarize at the same time they surrender as opposed to this new trial balloon you're floating that they can just surrender and [b]then, maybe[/b] disarm.
[/quote]


Surrender and then disarm is a far cry from disarm and then maybe we'll let you surrender.

If they disarm after surrendering, there is an end to hostilities via the surrender.
On the contrary, what has been suggested in this thread is that we want them to disarm before they surrender and thus opening themselves up to our continued attacks after they disarm but before they surrender.

So it seems that my gov wants them to disarm after they surrender. That's nothing new; in fact I'd say it's pretty standard.
We're not saying "disarm and maybe we'll stop hitting you" nor are we saying "you need to disarm before you surrender but we won't tell you how"

It's not an issue of concurrence; it's an issue of people in this thread deliberately presenting a ludicrous falsehood that we demand demilitarization before they can surrender. If anything, it's an issue of order of process.

[Lord Rune]

I'm glad you've verified your uncertainty Mathew PK. Your opinion seems to be at variance with Ramirus'. You say, in your opinion, that IRON/DAWN just have to surrender. Ramirus is saying that they need to do both before your alliance will talk to them.

[quote]<RamirusMaximus|GRE> I have nothing to say to IRON until you surrender and lay down your arms.[/quote]

The use of the word "and" means that both need to happen. It does not mean first one, then the other.

edit: thanks to Stetson for finding the quote. Its getting difficult to find things in 100 pages.

Edited May 3, 2010 by Lord Rune

[MTTezla]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='03 May 2010 - 02:34 PM' timestamp='1272911644' post='2285163']
That's got nothing to do with the claims in this thread that GRE is demanding that IRON demilitarize while we keep hitting them because we won't allow them to surrender (oh, and we also apparently won't tell them what they need to do to demilitarize )
[/quote]

Yeah, you've simply set up a situation where they demilitarize, and you retain the option to attack them by simply presenting terms that they won't accept. Huge difference there.

[Broncos98]

Stetson, stop making such valid points and supporting them with evidence, you're ruining Matthew's game.

I do feel sorry for Matthew though, tragically forced to suffer as the sacrificial OWF lamb, carved up again and again by the masses of reason. His job is even more difficult now that he has to not only cover for Ram's idiocy, but now also his own. Gre better be paying you overtime, Matthew, you're doing the work of two men!!

[Alekhine]

[quote name='All the wright moves' date='03 May 2010 - 02:55 PM' timestamp='1272912908' post='2285176']
I read that u r running against Ram which is good, however, should u lose, signifying that Gramlins support what is being done will u still stay.

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.- Edmund Burke
[/quote]

That remains to be seen.

[Aeternos Astramora]

When are Gre's elections held, and when do the (hopefully new government) take office?

[Alekhine]

[quote name='Aeternos Astramora' date='03 May 2010 - 05:36 PM' timestamp='1272922570' post='2285339']
When are Gre's elections held, and when do the (hopefully new government) take office?
[/quote]

The candidate phase ends tomorrow about 3 hours or so before update, and then there is a 48 hour voting period. After that 48 hour period, the winners take office. So Thursday night the process will be over.

[franciscus]

[quote]Surrender and then disarm is a far cry from disarm and then maybe we'll let you surrender[/quote]
I love your reading comprehension. I love even more the way you try to explain to us how to comprehend what we all read in your unique way. If you were arguing this in a kindergarten instead of OWF, I bet they'd've crowned you as their God.

X [u]and[/u] Y [u]before[/u] Z =/= X [u]and [b]then[/b][/u] Y before Z =/= Y [u]and [b]then[/b][/u] X before Z
So, when your head honcho said "unconditional surrender [u]and[/u] demilitarize before talking terms" + the general unwritten rule that a war is ongoing until peace terms and/or cease fire have been agreed upon by both sides = IRON/DAWN would be attacked while demilitarized and waiting for terms.

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='Alekhine' date='03 May 2010 - 05:40 PM' timestamp='1272922805' post='2285344']
The candidate phase ends tomorrow about 3 hours or so before update, and then there is a 48 hour voting period. After that 48 hour period, the winners take office. So Thursday night the process will be over.
[/quote]

It will be interesting to see if a new government takes power, and if they do if they continue this farce or not.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='franciscus' date='03 May 2010 - 02:45 PM' timestamp='1272923105' post='2285352']
I love your reading comprehension. I love even more the way you try to explain to us how to comprehend what we all read in your unique way. If you were arguing this in a kindergarten instead of OWF, I bet they'd've crowned you as their God.

X [u]and[/u] Y [u]before[/u] Z =/= X [u]and [b]then[/b][/u] Y before Z =/= Y [u]and [b]then[/b][/u] X before Z
So, when your head honcho said "unconditional surrender [u]and[/u] demilitarize before talking terms" + the general unwritten rule that a war is ongoing until peace terms and/or cease fire have been agreed upon by both sides = IRON/DAWN would be attacked while demilitarized and waiting for terms.
[/quote]


X and Y before Z != X [b]then[/b] Y before Z

This concept should not be that difficult.
IRON is not being forced to demilitarize before they can surrender.
This is specifically because of your "general unwritten rule."

I am specifically countering the claims that IRON/DAWN would be attacked after they demilitarize but before they can surrender.
Seems to me like you're reading too much into it.

Step 1: They surrender (this means that the war stops)
Step 2: They are told to demilitarize
Step 3: We tell them what to do next.

The only possibilities for Step 4 are:
A) They comply and life goes on. -or-
B) They refuse to comply and hostilities resume.

How could there be any other outcome?
Oh yeah, I forgot, because everybody is shaking in their cyber-boots that GRE will make some outrageous and unacceptable command!
Of course, if that happened then nobody would fault IRON for resuming hostilities and the entire world would have a reason to roll us.

So, what are you so afraid of?

Edited May 3, 2010 by Matthew PK

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='MTTezla' date='03 May 2010 - 02:19 PM' timestamp='1272921557' post='2285314']
Yeah, you've simply set up a situation where they demilitarize, and you retain the option to attack them by simply presenting terms that they won't accept. Huge difference there.
[/quote]


I don't understand why you think GRE [b]wants[/b] to keep attacking IRON.

Edited May 3, 2010 by Matthew PK

[Lord Brendan]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='03 May 2010 - 06:35 PM' timestamp='1272926090' post='2285415']
I don't understand why you think GRE [b]wants[/b] to keep attacking IRON.
[/quote]

I think it's a reasonable belief. You could end the war today if you wanted to. You could have ended it a month ago, with reparations if you wanted them. You could probably still get reparations or other terms (some IRON gov has now said they won't surrender, period, but I haven't seen Peron say it and I believe that's what matters). You just have to announce what they are; why you [i]aren't[/i] doing that is what's confusing people.

[quote]Well, thinking about it from IRON's perspective, either:
-you want an unconditional surrender because the terms you want to impose are so bad you know IRON wouldn't accept them otherwise
-the terms you are considering are light and IRON would accept them but you are demanding an unconditional surrender and continuing the war because of X

IRON cannot fathom what X could be, so they assume the first option is the correct one, in which case they have nothing to gain by surrendering and everything to lose.[/quote]

[Ashoka the Great]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='03 May 2010 - 06:35 PM' timestamp='1272926090' post='2285415']
I don't understand why you think GRE [b]wants[/b] to keep attacking IRON.
[/quote]
First, you aren't really attacking. Right now it's your newest 'acquisition' that is taking all the hits. (Is there a Tagalog word for 'meatshield'?)

Second, you and other Gramlins members have made multiple, conflicting statements. The fact is that nobody knows anything. (That includes you, btw.) In the absence of genuine knowledge, speculation is all that people are left with.

What [i]I[/i] don't understand is why you think your re-appearance in this thread is somehow helpful, in light of the fact that you've been repeatedly cornered by your own ignorance on several occasions.

Please send back the guy with no spine who wants to be part of your government. At least he was funnier.

[MCRABT]

[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='03 May 2010 - 11:40 PM' timestamp='1272926385' post='2285424']
I think it's a reasonable belief. You could end the war today if you wanted to. You could have ended it a month ago, with reparations if you wanted them. You could probably still get reparations or other terms (some IRON gov has now said they won't surrender, period, but I haven't seen Peron say it and I believe that's what matters). You just have to announce what they are; why you [i]aren't[/i] doing that is what's confusing people.
[/quote]

Every member of the IRON government has 1 vote, its what the majority think which is important. In the event of a tied vote Peron has the tie breaker.

[Rebel Virginia]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='03 May 2010 - 06:35 PM' timestamp='1272926090' post='2285415']
I don't understand why you think GRE [b]wants[/b] to keep attacking IRON.
[/quote]
[color="#0000FF"]If Gremlins was interested in ending this war you would not be pulling this "unconditional surrender" nonsense and this debate would have ended a long time ago. In fact, it probably never would have happened.[/color]

[Lord Brendan]

[quote name='MCRABT' date='03 May 2010 - 07:20 PM' timestamp='1272928805' post='2285455']
Every member of the IRON government has 1 vote, its what the majority think which is important. In the event of a tied vote Peron has the tie breaker.
[/quote]

Interesting.

Well then, in your opinion, if Gremlins offered you reasonable terms in a conventional fashion right now, how would the government vote go?

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Alekhine' date='03 May 2010 - 01:44 PM' timestamp='1272908668' post='2285127']
Well, at the moment, I consider running against Ramirus in the current elections to be sufficient action. We'll see how it moves on from there.
[/quote]
Good luck, then. In this case, you will be judged based on results, not based on intentions, though. But you probably already know that.

[Cormalek]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='04 May 2010 - 12:33 AM' timestamp='1272925996' post='2285411']
X and Y before Z != X [b]then[/b] Y before Z

This concept should not be that difficult.
IRON is not being forced to demilitarize before they can surrender.
This is specifically because of your "general unwritten rule."

I am specifically countering the claims that IRON/DAWN would be attacked after they demilitarize but before they can surrender.
Seems to me like you're reading too much into it.

Step 1: They surrender (this means that the war stops)
Step 2: They are told to demilitarize
Step 3: We tell them what to do next.

The only possibilities for Step 4 are:
A) They comply and life goes on. -or-
B) They refuse to comply and hostilities resume.

How could there be any other outcome?
Oh yeah, I forgot, because everybody is shaking in their cyber-boots that GRE will make some outrageous and unacceptable command!
Of course, if that happened then nobody would fault IRON for resuming hostilities and the entire world would have a reason to roll us.

So, what are you so afraid of?
[/quote]

Matthew, do you really fail to understand this? oO

Whether they surrender and demilitarize; surrender and after that demilitarize; or demilitarize, dance naked for a while and then surrender - [b]changes nothing, in this context[/b]. Because they have to [b]demilitarize before learning the terms[/b]. So if they get unacceptable terms - they end up defenceless. And I cannot see why you are trying to cause confusement over this, since Ramirus seem quite fond of this idea.

I guess you could take a hint; just in how high regard people hold act of surrender itself. I really hope you're just trying to make some damage control and wait for change in gov.
Though personally I think Ramirus will get re-elected, and by a vast majority at that. Because apparently all you have, and care for - is his word.

[Stetson76]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='03 May 2010 - 03:48 PM' timestamp='1272919708' post='2285271']
Surrender and then disarm is a far cry from disarm and then maybe we'll let you surrender.

If they disarm after surrendering, there is an end to hostilities via the surrender.
On the contrary, what has been suggested in this thread is that we want them to disarm before they surrender and thus opening themselves up to our continued attacks after they disarm but before they surrender.

So it seems that my gov wants them to disarm after they surrender. That's nothing new; in fact I'd say it's pretty standard.
We're not saying "disarm and maybe we'll stop hitting you" nor are we saying "you need to disarm before you surrender but we won't tell you how"

It's not an issue of concurrence; it's an issue of people in this thread deliberately presenting a ludicrous falsehood that we demand demilitarization before they can surrender. If anything, it's an issue of order of process.
[/quote]

I am in no way asserting that you will continue to fight with IRON/DAWN after demilitarization and in fact that is not the reason I decided to participate in this topic. I am merely pointing out that your statement that the only requirement for a cessation of hostilities is surrender is patently false and you confirmed it here. It's okay to say you made a mistake and misspoke, but instead you decided to question my reading comprehension and that of everyone else in this thread. It's hard to maintain a veneer of superiority when you can't keep a consistent argument.

[Link Gaetz]

This whole thing is just so odd. Just shows that any alliance can crater, regardless of how much they were respected at one time.

[Yggdrazil]

The semantic sophistry from GRE has become a travesty to the English language and should stop, unless GRE wants the position of most laughable alliance.