Who's Tech Dealing With The Gramlins

[pezstar]

[quote name='Alterego' date='21 April 2010 - 05:36 PM' timestamp='1271885801' post='2269587']
Thats a longer way of saying do something about it. You are an enabler alliance and will pay for your crimes too for backing Shamlins eternal war against IRON.
[/quote]

You apparently missed the earlier part of this thread in which I had the same conversation with bigwoody. Simply because you choose to interpret something one way does not mean that it is what I wrote.

On a related note, is that a threat?

[Bob]

[quote name='Yggdrazil' date='21 April 2010 - 05:30 PM' timestamp='1271885439' post='2269570']
MK leads a new Hegemony, they do not like being called that but it is true.Unlike the NPO lead Hegemony they brilliantly do not throw their friends to the wolves, even if that friend pulls the most asinine act ever conceived. You cannot fault them for learning the lesson of the former power, that cast aside friends wholesale for stupid actions, with the resultant loss of power.
[/quote]
A) I disagree completely with MK leading anything, especially a Hegemony.
B) What? MK does not abandon allies, nor have we ever. inb4alterego (something here about how you can argue we did to baps but lolol)

[Golan 1st]

[quote name='pezstar' date='22 April 2010 - 12:33 AM' timestamp='1271885608' post='2269579']That was tried. Numerous times. When it didn't work, peace was sought without them.[/quote]No, it wasn't tried. What you told them was basically "want to make peace with the rest of us? No? Ah, OK.". If you really wanted to make them peace out, you could tell them you would not intervene if other alliances helped us. If could possibly find other ways to save them of themselves. But you don't.

[Alterego]

[quote name='pezstar' date='21 April 2010 - 10:39 PM' timestamp='1271885980' post='2269593']
You apparently missed the earlier part of this thread in which I had the same conversation with bigwoody. Simply because you choose to interpret something one way does not mean that it is what I wrote.
[/quote]
Simply because you choose to ignore the fact you are backing Gramlins eternal war against IRON doesnt mean you aren't.

[quote name='pezstar' date='21 April 2010 - 10:39 PM' timestamp='1271885980' post='2269593']
On a related note, is that a threat?
[/quote]

simply because you choose to interpret something one way does not mean that it is what I wrote.

Edited April 21, 2010 by Alterego

[pezstar]

[quote name='Golan 1st' date='21 April 2010 - 05:41 PM' timestamp='1271886069' post='2269597']
No, it wasn't tried. What you told them was basically "want to make peace with the rest of us? No? Ah, OK.". If you really wanted to make them peace out, you could tell them you would not intervene if other alliances helped us. If could possibly find other ways to save them of themselves. But you don't.
[/quote]

Were you a part of these conversations? No? Because I was. I PERSONALLY held a conversation with Gre in which I attempted to get them to change their mind. As such, I think it is safe to say that you are simply making things up.

[Banksy]

[quote name='Alterego' date='22 April 2010 - 10:24 AM' timestamp='1271885035' post='2269563']
No you are worse because you saw the other side and cried like little girls, now that you have the jackboots you are doing far worse. Remember this is just 1 year of you lot and you have equalled or surpassed what took far longer in the past. If by some miracle you are still on top in 2 years you will have done the two things you have left to achieve (disband an alliance, appoint one of your own over another alliance)

Remember these?
Caffeine banned from government
Super reps in the Karma war
Super reps in this war
Eternal war against IRON

Its funny you still see yourself as a victim when you are the one doing the victimising. Your day will come again and you will pay for your crimes.
[/quote]
What would we do without your valuable and objective insight, Alterego?

[Alterego]

[quote name='Banksy' date='21 April 2010 - 10:44 PM' timestamp='1271886250' post='2269602']
What would we do without your valuable and objective insight, Alterego?
[/quote]
Whatever MK tells you

[Golan 1st]

[quote name='pezstar' date='22 April 2010 - 12:43 AM' timestamp='1271886217' post='2269600']Were you a part of these conversations? No? Because I was. I PERSONALLY held a conversation with Gre in which I attempted to get them to change their mind. As such, I think it is safe to say that you are simply making things up.[/quote]I see the results of your "attempts".

[ironchef]

[quote name='pezstar' date='21 April 2010 - 02:36 PM' timestamp='1271885760' post='2269584']
You're not educating anyone by using a one sided argument. That's called indoctrination. Again, I ask you, where is your condemnation of the alliances aiding IRON?
[/quote]

Where is my condemnation of the alliances aiding gRAMlins. If you read my posts in this thread you will see I have said over and over its up to IRON and DAWN to do with the infromation Bilrow posted what they will. Same with gRAMlins. If they think they are in a position to send out a PM to those aiding IRON and DAWN telling them to stop then more power to them. At this point I’m sure they would get nothing but a 'sure we will get right on that LOL' in response.

[der_ko]

[quote name='Alterego' date='21 April 2010 - 11:24 PM' timestamp='1271885035' post='2269563']
No you are worse because you saw the other side and cried like little girls
[/quote]
You have to give us credit for not bending over and taking it up the $@! when our enemies came for us. Instead of giving in we endured and came back stronger then ever before. I cannot fanthom what kind of pathetic, sad little alliance would ever consider befriending those who sought to annihilate you. I guess some people just don't have any self respect or maybe they just get off by being someones !@#$%*. [img]http://thecastlehall.com/boards/Smileys/kickass/iiam.gif[/img]

Edited April 21, 2010 by der_ko

[pezstar]

[quote name='Alterego' date='21 April 2010 - 05:43 PM' timestamp='1271886196' post='2269599']
Simply because you choose to ignore the fact you are backing Gramlins eternal war against IRON doesnt mean you aren't.



simply because you choose to interpret something one way does not mean that it is what I wrote.
[/quote]


Please point out a single instance of me stating that STA backs Gre. We don't. Nor do we back IRON. In fact, earlier in this very thread, I stated quite clearly that if it were to escalate, STA wouldn't touch it. I think that that statement pretty definitively points to the opposite of what you are saying. What I have ACTUALLY said, in context, with the post you quoted (which was in response to this: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=84644&view=findpost&p=2269487) was that if folks truly cared that much about this, they would do something about it, rather than make excuses to why they can't. It was most certainly not a dare or a challenge. I assure you, I'd quite rather the whole thing end immediately. The fact that this ridiculous and, frankly, !@#$%^&* war is still going on is, hands down, the most absurd thing I've ever seen in my years here.

[Sandwich Controversy]

[quote name='Alterego' date='21 April 2010 - 05:24 PM' timestamp='1271885035' post='2269563']
No you are worse because you saw the other side and cried like little girls, now that you have the jackboots you are doing far worse. Remember this is just 1 year of you lot and you have equalled or surpassed what took far longer in the past. If by some miracle you are still on top in 2 years you will have done the two things you have left to achieve (disband an alliance, appoint one of your own over another alliance)

Remember these?
Caffeine banned from government
Super reps in the Karma war
Super reps in this war
Eternal war against IRON

Its funny you still see yourself as a victim when you are the one doing the victimising. Your day will come again and you will pay for your crimes.
[/quote]
Where's the cool checkmark thing?

[Ryuzaki]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='22 April 2010 - 10:36 AM' timestamp='1271885779' post='2269585']
Well, at least you guys have made it totally clear: you are backing up Grämlins and enabling their actions by preventing anyone from helping IRON/DAWN, even though Grämlins are clearly in the wrong at this point.
[/quote]

How are we preventing anyone from helping IRON/DAWN?

[i surge i]

[quote name='ironchef' date='21 April 2010 - 05:46 PM' timestamp='1271886392' post='2269610']
Where is my condemnation of the alliances aiding gRAMlins.
[/quote]
In your sig

[pezstar]

[quote name='ironchef' date='21 April 2010 - 05:46 PM' timestamp='1271886392' post='2269610']
Where is my condemnation of the alliances aiding gRAMlins. If you read my posts in this thread you will see I have said over and over its up to IRON and DAWN to do with the infromation Bilrow posted what they will. Same with gRAMlins. If they think they are in a position to send out a PM to those aiding IRON and DAWN telling them to stop then more power to them. At this point I’m sure they would get nothing but a 'sure we will get right on that LOL' in response.
[/quote]

From http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=84644&view=findpost&p=2268554

[quote] Posted Yesterday, 09:57 PM
There was a time when sending tech, cash or troops; to an alliance at war was an act of war on the other alliance involved. I’m not sure when that changed. It’s up to IRON and DAWN if they feel a need to talk to these other alliances about the tech being sent to gRAMlins. However there has been a new policy set in CN that there is no expiration date on a CB so you never know some of these transgressions may be called out sometime in the future, depending on how IRON and DAWN are received when they come to call about your tech deals. [b]As an ally of these two alliances I’m not happy to see other alliances spit in their face like this.[/b] [/quote]

In case you try to spin that, you can also find it in your sig.

So you clearly think that aiding an alliance at war is spitting in the faces of their opponent. Yet you have nothing to say about the folks aiding IRON. This is because IRON is your ally. Your argument is one sided. You're not offended or angry or whatever it is you are about the fact that someone is aiding an alliance at war. You're upset that it's happening to an opponent of your ally. As such, you're not here to educate. You're here to propagandize.

Edited April 21, 2010 by pezstar

[Tautology]

[quote name='Alterego' date='21 April 2010 - 10:24 PM' timestamp='1271885035' post='2269563']
No you are [b]worse[/b] because you saw the other side and cried like little girls, now that you have the jackboots you are doing far [b]worse[/b]....[/quote]
"Worse" - and "worst" - are entertaining concepts (as are "better" and "best") but they're rather light and fluffy until you've done a reasonable job of defining what "good" and "bad" are. Most languages, including English, have thousands of adjectives, many of which define our personal preferences more precisely than "good" and "bad". Maybe if posters in this forum used adjectives with more specific meanings, we could eventually move beyond rhetoric to interesting discussion. I'd like that but I'm not stupid enough to see that some people might prefer to keep the talk in terms of "good" and "bad".

[Lord Curzon]

[quote name='pezstar' date='21 April 2010 - 05:36 PM' timestamp='1271885760' post='2269584']
You're not educating anyone by using a one sided argument. That's called indoctrination. Again, I ask you, where is your condemnation of the alliances aiding IRON?
[/quote]

Your argument implies the two sides are morally equal, which is patently untrue. Aiding IRON does not assist in a policy which demands unconditional surrender from enemies. Aiding Gre on the other hand, does.

What you are missing here is [i]why[/i] aiding an alliance is considered bad. The reason it is considered bad is because it aids an enemy and allows them to continue fighting/resisting. Thus, aiding is considered bad because it is inherently tied to the military struggle itself. So, to answer your question, I don't condemn alliances aiding IRON because IRON's struggle is that of survival, where on the other hand alliances aiding Gre are assisting in a war of conquest. The two actions are not equitable.

Look everybody! Lord Curzon jumped on the moralist train! Thanks Vilien, you have taught me well .

[Alterego]

[quote name='der_ko' date='21 April 2010 - 10:49 PM' timestamp='1271886547' post='2269612']
You have to give us credit for not bending over and taking it up the $@! when our enemies came for us. Instead of giving in we endured and came back stronger then ever before. I cannot fanthom what kind of pathetic, sad little alliance would ever consider befriending those who sought to annihilate you. I guess some people just don't have any self respect or maybe they just get off by being someones !@#$%*. [img]http://thecastlehall.com/boards/Smileys/kickass/iiam.gif[/img]
[/quote]
Sometimes your worst enemy is a better friend than your best friend. What do you think that says about your enemy and your "friend". I will say one thing, you have amased quite a meatshield in C&G.

Edited April 21, 2010 by Alterego

[pezstar]

[quote name='Lord Curzon' date='21 April 2010 - 05:56 PM' timestamp='1271886967' post='2269625']
Your argument implies the two sides are morally equal, which is patently untrue. Aiding IRON does not assist in a policy which demands unconditional surrender from enemies. Aiding Gre on the other hand, does.

What you are missing here is [i]why[/i] aiding an alliance is considered bad. The reason it is considered bad is because it aids an enemy and allows them to continue fighting/resisting. Thus, aiding is considered bad because it is inherently tied to the military struggle itself. So, to answer your question, I don't condemn alliances aiding IRON because IRON's struggle is that of survival, where on the other hand alliances aiding Gre are assisting in a war of conquest. The two actions are not equitable.

Look everybody! Lord Curzon jumped on the moralist train! Thanks Vilien, you have taught me well .
[/quote]

Before I respond to this, I want to make sure I am understanding your argument. Are you saying that it is ok to aid IRON because they hold the moral high ground here, but not ok to aid Gre because they're acting as criminals?

[northstars]

[quote name='ironchef' date='21 April 2010 - 04:46 PM' timestamp='1271886392' post='2269610']
Where is my condemnation of the alliances aiding gRAMlins
[/quote]
I'd just like to reiterate what what has already been stated.

[img]http://storage.canalblog.com/28/38/51439/51924185.png[/img]

[Natan]

[quote name='Alterego' date='21 April 2010 - 05:24 PM' timestamp='1271885035' post='2269563']
No you are worse because you saw the other side and cried like little girls, now that you have the jackboots you are doing far worse. Remember this is just 1 year of you lot and you have equalled or surpassed what took far longer in the past. If by some miracle you are still on top in 2 years you will have done the two things you have left to achieve (disband an alliance, appoint one of your own over another alliance)

Remember these?
Caffeine banned from government
Super reps in the Karma war
Super reps in this war
Eternal war against IRON

Its funny you still see yourself as a victim when you are the one doing the victimising. Your day will come again and you will pay for your crimes.
[/quote]

Allowing an alliance to surrender to you is eternal war? What am I reading? Just because the alliance doesn't like the conditions doesn't make it eternal war.

[Golan 1st]

[quote name='pezstar' date='22 April 2010 - 12:49 AM' timestamp='1271886579' post='2269613']
Please point out a single instance of me stating that STA backs Gre. We don't. Nor do we back IRON. [b]In fact, earlier in this very thread, I stated quite clearly that if it were to escalate, STA wouldn't touch it[/b]. I think that that statement pretty definitively points to the opposite of what you are saying. What I have ACTUALLY said, in context, with the post you quoted (which was in response to this: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=84644&view=findpost&p=2269487) was that if folks truly cared that much about this, they would do something about it, rather than make excuses to why they can't. It was most certainly not a dare or a challenge. I assure you, I'd quite rather the whole thing end immediately. The fact that this ridiculous and, frankly, !@#$%^&* war is still going on is, hands down, the most absurd thing I've ever seen in my years here.[/quote]If you really said that (I somehow missed it, but I will take your word), then all I said to those enabling Gramlins does not apply to you.

[quote name='Ryuzaki' date='22 April 2010 - 12:52 AM' timestamp='1271886716' post='2269617']How are we preventing anyone from helping IRON/DAWN?[/quote]By threatening to intervene if they do.

[Bob]

[quote name='Golan 1st' date='21 April 2010 - 05:59 PM' timestamp='1271887169' post='2269638']
By threatening to intervene if they do.
[/quote]
Thats a deterrent, not prevention. They can still do so if they wish. As stated before I'd rather they not because i like this peace D:

[Alterego]

[quote name='Natan' date='21 April 2010 - 10:59 PM' timestamp='1271887161' post='2269636']
Allowing an alliance to surrender to you is eternal war? What am I reading? Just because the alliance doesn't like the conditions doesn't make it eternal war.
[/quote]
The war will continue indefinately unless IRON surrender unconditionally to Shamlins and accept any terms they decide to dish out. Its a common tactic in war to offer unnaceptable terms if you want the war to continue.

Edited April 21, 2010 by Alterego

[Golan 1st]

[quote name='Natan' date='22 April 2010 - 12:59 AM' timestamp='1271887161' post='2269636']Allowing an alliance to surrender to you is eternal war? What am I reading? Just because the alliance doesn't like the conditions doesn't make it eternal war.[/quote]Thanks for saying this.
This will do miracles to your alliance's image.