Is the war over or are the terms eternal?

[Bob Janova]

[quote name='Denial' date='29 April 2010 - 02:38 AM' timestamp='1272505081' post='2279160']
Firstly, if Gremlins were actually winning the conflict, you might have some semblance of a point.[/quote]
So it's only unjust if you actually manage to force it through? I'm not sure it's true, yet, that Grämlins are losing, but at the very least they are holding IRON and DAWN back for (potentially) a long time because of their demand.

[quote]If you are to keep any consistency, I expect to see you valiantly supporting Gremlins a week from now, as it becomes clear that IRON & DAWN will be the victors. After all, the moment C&G turned the tide of battle and began defending ourselves effectively against TOP & co was the instant we became the focus of every Bob Janova Conspiracy Theory for the Occupation of Innocents (who initiate wars and then lose them).[/quote]
Nice ad hom there, but that was more to do with how you were acting than the fact you were winning. If IRON and DAWN use the upper hand they might well get eventually to act in an unjust fashion then I will criticise them for it. Since you seem intent on bringing it up, the reason you were being criticised was for (i) the terms you were trying to push (record reps and a no aid clause) and (ii) the admission in Archon's thread starter that you pushed up pressure on the other fronts in order to trap TOP/IRON into the war, and then claimed you had nothing to do with it. So far all IRON/DAWN have done to deserve criticism is to make the pre-emptive attack, and I think that's been adequately covered – and they've agreed to terms to put that behind them.

[quote]Secondly, have Gremlins' ridiculous terms been enforced? No. Have you got any substantial evidence that military Wonder decommission is part of those terms? No, you admit that yourself. Thus, we have not moved back into a Hegemony-like practice of Wonder & Improvement decommission. [/quote]
Not being able to enforce them doesn't stop them being ridiculous. And like I say, that is from the rumour mill, though Ironchef (who I believe is more likely to know about it than you or I, being allied to the alliances who are being 'offered' the terms) strongly alluded to it in the other thread.

[quote]And you saying that C&G in any way provoked TOP will not be true no matter how many deluded attempts you make to argue that point. The only 'provocation' they could point to is criticism on the forums. Gee, attacking alliances for criticising them on the forums. Sounds awfully Hegemony-like, Bob![/quote]
Translation: We didn't provoke them, we only provoked them! And you and I both know that some members of C&G were in coalition planning channels and managing coalition aid during the first phase of the war, but I fully expect you to keep lying about that. TOP and IRON did not attack you for the provocation on the forums, though since you recognise that that [i]did[/i] happen I hope you'll stop claiming 'without provocation' from now on, they attacked you because you were going to end up at war with them if they entered in a 'textbook' fashion (on Fark) and they perceived (wrongly) that it would be to their strategic advantage to open that front on their own terms instead of when SF had them in nuclear anarchy.

I'm sorry to cover all this again, but you brought it up, and it's far too early to permit a rewriting of history. You have enough facts on your side without resorting to lies.

[quote]You do realise C&G are not signatories to any of the peace agreements that contain the no-entry clauses that people are complaining about, right?[/quote]
That's nice, but completely irrelevant to what you quoted. The way in which C&G is enabling Grämlins' demands is by being at best ambiguous (some of you have strongly implied you would 'defend') about whether you would go to war for Grämlins if someone [i]not bound by surrender agreements[/i] came in to support IRON/DAWN. MHA can be put in this category as well. This is a different (although related) question to the one about releasing alliances from terms.

The position on alliances under terms is quite clear, even if it's not what some people would like. (And as Typo says, we are open to discussion from the alliances who surrendered to us; I'm sure the other Supergrievances alliances are too.) C&G are maintaining a position of deliberate ambiguity so they can keep people from helping IRON/DAWN while being able to claim that they're not doing anything. Unless you'd like to break the ambiguity of course, and answer the question: would C&G go to war for Grämlins if someone not bound by terms hit them in support of IRON/DAWN?

[Denial]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='30 April 2010 - 12:06 AM' timestamp='1272548185' post='2279824']
So it's only unjust if you actually manage to force it through?[/quote]
Uh, yeah, pretty much.

Really, what in the hell kind of question was that?

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='30 April 2010 - 12:06 AM' timestamp='1272548185' post='2279824']
I'm not sure it's true, yet, that Grämlins are losing, but at the very least they are holding IRON and DAWN back for (potentially) a long time because of their demand.[/quote]
Just take a glance at the statistics. I know you are not exactly on friendly terms with fact or logic, but anyone can quite clearly see that IRON and DAWN are growing rapidly while Gremlins are falling apart. Sure, perhaps IRON and DAWN's reconstruction would advance even more swiftly without the ongoing conflict, but then, you must realise for the sake of a handful of national wars (currently 23 for IRON, 4 for DAWN), they have been allowed to suspend their reparations payments. It's easily arguable that they may have a better chance of redevelopment whilst in a war with a crippled Gremlins than while paying compensation for the war of aggression they initiated.


[quote name='Bob Janova' date='30 April 2010 - 12:06 AM' timestamp='1272548185' post='2279824']
Nice ad hom there, but that was more to do with how you were acting than the fact you were winning. If IRON and DAWN use the upper hand they might well get eventually to act in an unjust fashion then I will criticise them for it. Since you seem intent on bringing it up, the reason you were being criticised was for (i) the terms you were trying to push (record reps and a no aid clause) and (ii) the admission in Archon's thread starter that you pushed up pressure on the other fronts in order to trap TOP/IRON into the war, and then claimed you had nothing to do with it. So far all IRON/DAWN have done to deserve criticism is to make the pre-emptive attack, and I think that's been adequately covered – and they've agreed to terms to put that behind them.[/quote]
As I mentioned previously, IRON and DAWN quite clearly have the upper hand in the current war. When do they plan on ending the war? Do they have a plan for peace? Or are they planning to keep Gremlins in an eternal war? Gremlins may be pursuing an idiotic plan for peace, but IRON and DAWN do not even possess one.

In terms of the C&G peace settlement, reparations, by very definition, were in order. We were subject to a nuclear war of aggression. Not just a war of aggression declared on one bloc member, but the entirety of the bloc in one great attack. Whether you choose to accept it or not, Complaints & Grievances were militarily and politically uninvolved in any prior conflict when war was brought to us. All other things left aside, the nature and result of both the Karma War and Bipolar War demanded high reparations; for once, the aggressors were the party having reparations extracted from. In the era of the Hegemony, wars were manufactured and the victims of aggression not only faced complete destruction, and occasionally prolonged occupation, but then on top of that, had to pay substantial reparations. The last two major wars mark a turning point in the Cyberverse, where the extraction of reparations actually matches the definition of 'reparations'.

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='30 April 2010 - 12:06 AM' timestamp='1272548185' post='2279824']
Not being able to enforce them doesn't stop them being ridiculous. And like I say, that is from the rumour mill, though Ironchef (who I believe is more likely to know about it than you or I, being allied to the alliances who are being 'offered' the terms) strongly alluded to it in the other thread.[/quote]
Oh, surprise, surprise, you are basing your arguments of off rumour rather than fact. Yes, the pursuit of unconditional surrender by Gremlins is ridiculous. There is no question of that, and the fact that the entirety of the C&G coalition holds this sentiment is clearly displayed by the fact that Gremlins are fighting alone. However, whether or not their peace policy is ridiculous is not what we are debating. You claimed that the Cyberverse had moved back into an era worse than that of the Hegemony, marked by Wonder and Improvement decommissions, among other things. That is worse than pathetic hyperbole, it is just an outright falsehood. So, I will reiterate. Have Gremlins' ridiculous terms been enforced? No. Have you got any substantial evidence that military Wonder decommission is part of those terms? No, you admit that yourself. Thus, we have not moved back into a Hegemony-like practice of Wonder & Improvement decommission.

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='30 April 2010 - 12:06 AM' timestamp='1272548185' post='2279824']
Translation: We didn't provoke them, we only provoked them![/quote]
So, you support declaring on entire blocs of alliances purely because of comments made on the forum by regular members? My, Bob, your participation in the Continuum is quite clearly evident here. Hell, if you just find yourself a time machine, I am quite certain Pacifica or GOONS circa 2007 would be quite happy to accept your application for membership. You'd fit in well.

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='30 April 2010 - 12:06 AM' timestamp='1272548185' post='2279824']
And you and I both know that some members of C&G were in coalition planning channels and managing coalition aid during the first phase of the war, but I fully expect you to keep lying about that.[/quote]
Where is your proof, exactly? Time and time again, as your conspiracy theories have been torn apart by myself and others, you have been asked to provide proof to substantiate your accusations. You have consistently failed. Relying on rumours again, are we? You seem to be making a habit of that.


[quote name='Bob Janova' date='30 April 2010 - 12:06 AM' timestamp='1272548185' post='2279824']
TOP and IRON did not attack you for the provocation on the forums, though since you recognise that that [i]did[/i] happen I hope you'll stop claiming 'without provocation' from now on...[/quote]
So, they did not attack us for comments on the forums, but at the same time, our comments on the forums were provocation for war? Nice doublethink there, Bob.

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='30 April 2010 - 12:06 AM' timestamp='1272548185' post='2279824']
... they attacked you because you were going to end up at war with them if they entered in a 'textbook' fashion (on Fark) and they perceived (wrongly) that it would be to their strategic advantage to open that front on their own terms instead of when SF had them in nuclear anarchy.[/quote]
You know, for someone that likes to treat the TOP Declaration of War as if its the holy scripture, often quoting from it in feeble attempts to prove more rational members of the community 'wrong', you sure do forget its content whenever convenient. The declaration explicitly stated they were declaring war on us for comments by regular members in the public arena. Further, if TOP & co's motivation did expand to what you wrote, you are only proving my point that it was an entirely unjustified war. There was no evidence that Mushroom Kingdom would end up in the war; rather, there was a mountain of proof that displayed we would likely remain neutral (from extensive diplomatic efforts to firstly avoid and then conclude the war, to the mass exodus of FoB government to Poison Clan).

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='30 April 2010 - 12:06 AM' timestamp='1272548185' post='2279824']
That's nice, but completely irrelevant to what you quoted. The way in which C&G is enabling Grämlins' demands is by being at best ambiguous (some of you have strongly implied you would 'defend') about whether you would go to war for Grämlins if someone [i]not bound by surrender agreements[/i] came in to support IRON/DAWN. MHA can be put in this category as well. This is a different (although related) question to the one about releasing alliances from terms.

The position on alliances under terms is quite clear, even if it's not what some people would like. (And as Typo says, we are open to discussion from the alliances who surrendered to us; I'm sure the other Supergrievances alliances are too.) C&G are maintaining a position of deliberate ambiguity so they can keep people from helping IRON/DAWN while being able to claim that they're not doing anything. Unless you'd like to break the ambiguity of course, and answer the question: would C&G go to war for Grämlins if someone not bound by terms hit them in support of IRON/DAWN?
[/quote]
I would like to state my amusement how you brush off the fact that your own alliance has far more influence over who can and cannot assist IRON and DAWN in their now successful war with Gremlins. Again, this is not an attack on Viridia, as I agree with the stance of Viridian government. But of course, it all comes down to those damn C&G tyrants! Really, Bob, your constant criticism of our bloc never had much credibility from the get-go, but you have quickly become an embarrassment to yourself and your alliance. If you had a clue, and would cease frothing at the mouth whilst hurling baseless accusations, you would find that Mushroom Kingdom, and Complaints & Grievances as a whole, has the[i]exact same policy as your own alliance[/i]. If any alliance seriously wishes to become involved in the conflict in some way, all that is required is that they actually participate in some form of diplomacy, and present their case. Now, I am not in a position to determine what would and would not be accepted, but what you must realise, is that each time you attempt to drag C&G through the mud, you are doing the exact same to your own alliance. It appears you possess a higher level of allegiance to IRON, DAWN and TOP than you do your alliance and its allies.

You are a laughing stock of the Cyberverse, Bob. You are now on par with the Alteregos, the Shahenshahs and the PrideAssassins. When you unite Haflinger, your own government, and C&G members in making comments that shine a potent spotlight of rationality upon the cesspool of falsehoods that are your arguments, surely that, if nothing else, would provoke an inner realisation that you have delved so deep into your own world of delusion that you could now be an ideal spokesperson for the very enemies you fought against just months ago.

Edited April 29, 2010 by Denial

[Bob Janova]

You really are the most irritating person to debate against, because you won't actually answer any points, you just try to misrepresent or twist what is in front of you to divert attention from the fact you're not answering them.

Questions or points that you did not answer in your long post:
- [i]You and I both know that some members of C&G were in coalition planning channels and managing coalition aid during the first phase of the war, but I fully expect you to keep lying about that.[/i]
I should have known better, you didn't resort to a lie (yet), you just dodged. By its very nature, proof of your involvement is from private discussions so no, I'm not going to log dump for you. Ask your alliance's financial department about it. But again I issue the challenge: will you lie and outright deny your involvement?
- [i]Translation: We didn't provoke them, we only provoked them![/i]
No, I don't support pre-emptive strikes, even when they are provoked by far more than words (as this one was). But you just totally avoided the point there, which is that your claim of 'without provocation' was completely false, as even you admit that C&G [i]did[/i] provoke TOP and others.
- [i]would C&G go to war for Grämlins if someone not bound by terms hit them in support of IRON/DAWN?[/i]
Question is still outstanding; instead you went off on a tangent (again) about alliances which [i]are[/i] bound with terms, explicitly not what I was asking about. How can C&G have the same policy as us when you said in your previous post that C&G are not signatories of any surrender terms that bind alliances from re-entry, which is the only situation our policy applies? Unless that is a roundabout way of saying you won't interfere with any alliances helping IRON/DAWN? Because I believe our policy would be not to interfere with any alliances helping them who are not bound to us by terms, which for you is everyone.

Misrepresentations by you:

[quote]You claimed that the Cyberverse had moved back into an era worse than that of the Hegemony, marked by Wonder and Improvement decommissions, among other things[/quote]
No, no I did not claim that. I pointed out that one of your claims was definitely false (no indefinite war) and another was false if the rumours from the people who are closer to the action are correct. I didn't say anything about the state of the Cyberverse (I did say that what Grämlins are demanding was worse than the Hegemony, though it is arguable that noWedge tried worse). I notice you didn't actually rebut my point, just misrepresented what I said and had a go at that instead. In case you've forgotten, here's what you said:
[quote]To move from an era of indefinite or eternal wars, ... crippling Wonder and Improvement destruction ... to an era where such practices are unheard of, is quite an accomplishment.[/quote]
Indefinite wars are certainly not unheard of when you're in a thread talking about an indefinite war!

[quote]You know, for someone that likes to treat the TOP Declaration of War as if its the holy scripture[/quote]
Considering I didn't quote the DoW [i]at all[/i] in this thread that's just a straight up misrepresentation. Though, perhaps, your continually hostile public stance towards them – and yes that's provocation – did have some effect, and I should have said 'they did not attack you [i]only[/i] because of provocation on the forums ...'.

Now to move on to the parts which aren't just misrepresenting or dodging my points (or plain insulting me), and are actually worth responding to:
[quote]your own alliance has far more influence over who can and cannot assist IRON and DAWN in their now successful war with Gremlins[/quote]
Again this is playing fast and loose with the truth; VE has influence only over two alliances (Argent and TOOL), whereas C&G's deliberate ambiguity is deterring [i]every[/i] alliance – bound by terms to us, others or no-one – from assisting them.

[quote]anyone can quite clearly see that IRON and DAWN are growing rapidly while Gremlins are falling apart[/quote]
IRON and DAWN also have their top tier trapped in peace mode, which renders them unable to send out aid and kills their growth. They have the upper hand on the battlefield at the moment but only because the war is not taking place in the top tier. To claim that it's looking like a decisive victory for them is – again – misrepresentation.

[quote]It's easily arguable that they may have a better chance of redevelopment whilst in a war with a crippled Gremlins than while paying compensation for the war of aggression they initiated[/quote]
If you really think the reparations you imposed on them are high enough to seriously restrict their growth – worse than having their top tier stranded in peace mode and unable to send growth aid to the lower tiers – then those must be harsh reparations indeed, and those high principled words about an end to crippling reparations in Karma a hollow lie.

[quote]Gremlins may be pursuing an idiotic plan for peace, but IRON and DAWN do not even possess one.[/quote]
IRON/DAWN had agreed to pay reparations to Grämlins before Grämlins pulled the rug. They have said that white peace is on offer whenever Grämlins want it, though that will probably be revised the longer Grämlins drag on the economic damage. Yes, they have a plan for peace, and in fact you should know that full well since they agreed to peace with your bloc and alliance and it was Grämlins, not IRON/DAWN, that refused to follow the 'plan'.

(edit: screwed up a tag)

Edited April 29, 2010 by Bob Janova

[Golan 1st]

[quote name='Denial' date='29 April 2010 - 06:12 PM' timestamp='1272553911' post='2279882']Uh, yeah, pretty much.

Really, what in the hell kind of question was that?[/quote]So if you commit a crime, but fail, then you are OK?

[quote]Just take a glance at the statistics. I know you are not exactly on friendly terms with fact or logic, but anyone can quite clearly see that IRON and DAWN are growing rapidly while Gremlins are falling apart. Sure, perhaps IRON and DAWN's reconstruction would advance even more swiftly without the ongoing conflict, but then, you must realise for the sake of a handful of national wars (currently 23 for IRON, 4 for DAWN), they have been allowed to suspend their reparations payments. It's easily arguable that they may have a better chance of redevelopment whilst in a war with a crippled Gremlins than while paying compensation for the war of aggression they initiated.[/quote]Denial, I sometimes disagreed with you, but I have always respected you.
Now, do you seriously expect anyone to this that you actually believe that the continuation of the war forced on us by Gramlins is beneficial for us? Unless I have overestimated your intelligence, this is a strange attempt to convince people of what is obviously untrue.

[quote]As I mentioned previously, IRON and DAWN quite clearly have the upper hand in the current war. When do they plan on ending the war? Do they have a plan for peace? Or are they planning to keep Gremlins in an eternal war? Gremlins may be pursuing an idiotic plan for peace, but IRON and DAWN do not even possess one.[/quote]Well, it's kind of hard to talk peace when the other side refuses to talk about anything whatsoever until we unconditionally surrender, which is, by your own assertion, idiotic.
We still said on several occasion that for the time being we are offering Gramlins white peace.

[quote]In terms of the C&G peace settlement, reparations, by very definition, were in order. We were subject to a nuclear war of aggression. Not just a war of aggression declared on one bloc member, but the entirety of the bloc in one great attack. Whether you choose to accept it or not, Complaints & Grievances were militarily and politically uninvolved in any prior conflict when war was brought to us. All other things left aside, the nature and result of both the Karma War and Bipolar War demanded high reparations; for once, the aggressors were the party having reparations extracted from. In the era of the Hegemony, wars were manufactured and the victims of aggression not only faced complete destruction, and occasionally prolonged occupation, but then on top of that, had to pay substantial reparations. The last two major wars mark a turning point in the Cyberverse, where the extraction of reparations actually matches the definition of 'reparations'.[/quote]Again, the excuse of "they were worse than us".

[quote]Oh, surprise, surprise, you are basing your arguments of off rumour rather than fact. Yes, the pursuit of unconditional surrender by Gremlins is ridiculous. There is no question of that, and the fact that the entirety of the C&G coalition holds this sentiment is clearly displayed by the fact that Gremlins are fighting alone. However, whether or not their peace policy is ridiculous is not what we are debating. You claimed that the Cyberverse had moved back into an era worse than that of the Hegemony, marked by Wonder and Improvement decommissions, among other things. That is worse than pathetic hyperbole, it is just an outright falsehood. So, I will reiterate. Have Gremlins' ridiculous terms been enforced? No. Have you got any substantial evidence that military Wonder decommission is part of those terms? No, you admit that yourself. Thus, we have not moved back into a Hegemony-like practice of Wonder & Improvement decommission.[/quote]


[quote]So, [b]you support declaring on entire blocs of alliances purely because of comments made on the forum by regular members[/b]? My, Bob, your participation in the Continuum is quite clearly evident here. Hell, if you just find yourself a time machine, I am quite certain Pacifica or GOONS circa 2007 would be quite happy to accept your application for membership. You'd fit in well.[/quote]You know damn well that he has never said that and that this is not his opinion. Trying to put words in people's mouths is poor debating tactics and those who do this have no better arguments.

[quote]So, they did not attack us for comments on the forums, but at the same time, our comments on the forums were provocation for war? Nice doublethink there, Bob. [/quote]You are intentionally twisting what he said. Very unclassy.

[quote]You are a laughing stock of the Cyberverse, Bob. You are now on par with the Alteregos, the Shahenshahs and the PrideAssassins. When you unite Haflinger, your own government, and C&G members in making comments that shine a potent spotlight of rationality upon the cesspool of falsehoods that are your arguments, surely that, if nothing else, would provoke an inner realisation that you have delved so deep into your own world of delusion that you could now be an ideal spokesperson for the very enemies you fought against just months ago.[/quote]No, Bob is a highly respectable by many members of this community and what he says is often valued by quite a few of us. He gained the reputation who represent well the good values in CN.
Your resort to personal attacks, on the other hand, does not respect you.

Edited April 29, 2010 by Golan 1st

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='29 April 2010 - 12:43 PM' timestamp='1272559367' post='2279944']
Again this is playing fast and loose with the truth; VE has influence only over two alliances (Argent and TOOL), whereas C&G's deliberate ambiguity is deterring [i]every[/i] alliance – bound by terms to us, others or no-one – from assisting them.
[/quote]
Bob, VE is MDPed to FOK, who earlier in this thread made a public statement refusing an alliance permission to assist IRON.

[Bob Janova]

I'm fairly sure that was referring to an alliance which is bound by surrender terms to FOK, no? But regardless, VE isn't actually FOK, so that's not VE keeping anyone out.

[Alterego]

[quote name='Denial' date='29 April 2010 - 02:38 AM' timestamp='1272505081' post='2279160']
Firstly, if Gremlins were actually winning the conflict, you might have some semblance of a point.
[/quote]
How can you tell? Their agenda is still unknown to their own members how could you know if they are winning or meeting their goals. They have IRON & DAWN tied down and have forced well over a dozen alliances to adopt a neutral position for as long as they see fit and their "friends" protect this action militarily. Without that military support Gramlins would be more receptive to actually ending this but MK & Co are happily backing this militarily and dont want it to end. If they did want IRON & DAWN to get a real offer of peace they could withdraw military support for the eternal war of oppression against IRON & DAWN end this fairly quickly.

Want peace? withdraw military support. Continue backing this militarily and you dont want it to end. Simple...

[BlkAK47_002]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='29 April 2010 - 12:43 PM' timestamp='1272559367' post='2279944']
You really are the most irritating person to debate against, because you won't actually answer any points, you just try to misrepresent or twist what is in front of you to divert attention from the fact you're not answering them.
[/quote]
Welcome to CN politics Bob where if a person cannot defeat the "Coup de grace" arguement you made against them, they will resort to diversion, twisting up words or making you look like an idiot.

[Golan 1st]

[quote name='BlkAK47002' date='29 April 2010 - 09:08 PM' timestamp='1272564515' post='2280049']Welcome to CN politics Bob where if a person cannot defeat the "Coup de grace" arguement you made against them, they will resort to diversion, twisting up words or making you look like an idiot.[/quote]I don't think that Bob is the one made look like an idiot by Denial's post.

[BlkAK47_002]

[quote name='Golan 1st' date='29 April 2010 - 02:34 PM' timestamp='1272566044' post='2280083']
I don't think that Bob is the one made look like an idiot by Denial's post.
[/quote]
That isn't directly implied. My post meant that those are 3 of the things that might happen to you if you arguement cannot be defeated and people wish to prolong it. I didn't say which applied directly to this situation.

Edited April 29, 2010 by BlkAK47002

[Tromp]

[quote name='Haflinger' date='29 April 2010 - 07:37 PM' timestamp='1272562648' post='2280010']
Bob, VE is MDPed to FOK, who earlier in this thread made a public statement refusing an alliance permission to assist IRON.
[/quote]
I have stated I'd like to know why we should retract terms for BAPS, and have outlined why I was of the opinion we have done enough for now.
Nobody has yet approached FOK for talks by the way, even though it has been two days by now.

Perhaps actual communication would get you somewhere, instead of whining here.

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='Tromp' date='29 April 2010 - 03:43 PM' timestamp='1272570176' post='2280174']
I have stated I'd like to know why we should retract terms for BAPS, and have outlined why I was of the opinion we have done enough for now.
Nobody has yet approached FOK for talks by the way, even though it has been two days by now.

Perhaps actual communication would get you somewhere, instead of whining here.
[/quote]

Don't waste your breath. I've been saying the same thing for the last ten pages. They don't get it. They'd rather host a whine fest here to try and make us all look bad than actually approach us to try and work out any issues.

I dislike what Gre is doing, but its hard to work up any real sympathy for 'the other side' when all their spokesmen are this thick.

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Tromp' date='29 April 2010 - 03:43 PM' timestamp='1272570176' post='2280174']
I have stated I'd like to know why we should retract terms for BAPS, and have outlined why I was of the opinion we have done enough for now.
Nobody has yet approached FOK for talks by the way, even though it has been two days by now.
[/quote]
NobodyExpects asked you directly, you answered directly, not giving any reason to suggest there was any further reason to negotiate.

[Tromp]

What was there to negotiate?

I don't want to repeat myself here, but I asked for an explanation of why we should allow such a thing. It was never provided, thus I maintained the position I have taken. Which is, for the record, that I feel we have listened to the complaints enough by leaving Gre alone on the field.

[Alterego]

[quote name='Tromp' date='29 April 2010 - 08:43 PM' timestamp='1272570176' post='2280174']
I have stated I'd like to know why we should retract terms for BAPS, and have outlined why I was of the opinion we have done enough for now.
Nobody has yet approached FOK for talks by the way, even though it has been two days by now.

Perhaps actual communication would get you somewhere, instead of whining here.
[/quote]
Get used to it this will continue for months or years if needs be, our willpower will out last your political ties. When the time comes and either C&G or SF makes their move peoples opinion will suddenly change and people like yourself or your alliance will be trying to rerwrite history and white wash your behaviour during this debacle.

[quote name='TypoNinja' date='29 April 2010 - 09:21 PM' timestamp='1272572485' post='2280228']
Don't waste your breath. I've been saying the same thing for the last ten pages. They don't get it. They'd rather host a whine fest here to try and make us all look bad than actually approach us to try and work out any issues.

I dislike what Gre is doing, but its hard to work up any real sympathy for 'the other side' when all their spokesmen are this thick.
[/quote]
I know the feeling, I keep hearing people say how they hate whats happening but absolutely wont do a thing to stop it.

Duh...its bad...duh Im still backing militarily this thing I am pretending to hate but in reality love it so much I will take my alliance to war to make sure no one or nothing interferes with Gramlins ability to keep the stale mate going. You were saying about being thick?

[Alterego]

[quote name='Tromp' date='29 April 2010 - 10:27 PM' timestamp='1272576454' post='2280298']
What was there to negotiate?

I don't want to repeat myself here, but I asked for an explanation of why we should allow such a thing. It was never provided, thus I maintained the position I have taken. Which is, for the record, that I feel we have listened to the complaints enough by leaving Gre alone on the field.
[/quote]
They arent alone you are defending them.

[Haflinger]

The explanation was given in this thread.

[Tromp]

[quote name='Alterego' date='29 April 2010 - 11:29 PM' timestamp='1272576547' post='2280301']
Get used to it this will continue for months or years if needs be, our willpower will out last your political ties. When the time comes and either C&G or SF makes their move peoples opinion will suddenly change and people like yourself or your alliance will be trying to rerwrite history and white wash your behaviour during this debacle.
[/quote]
Cool story bro'.

I do wonder though, when will you stop being all talk and actually do something?
You just proved my point again, it makes you look silly.

[Alterego]

[quote name='Tromp' date='29 April 2010 - 10:33 PM' timestamp='1272576770' post='2280307']
Cool story bro'.

I do wonder though, when will you stop being all talk and actually do something?
You just proved my point again, it makes you look silly.
[/quote]
cool story bro

Pretending you are 100% against it while being ready to crush anyone who interferes in what Gramlins are doing makes you look...well you know.

[Tromp]

[quote name='Alterego' date='29 April 2010 - 11:30 PM' timestamp='1272576599' post='2280304']
They arent alone you are defending them.
[/quote]
Yeah, keep repeating that, it doesn't make it any more truthful.

[quote name='Haflinger' date='29 April 2010 - 11:30 PM' timestamp='1272576603' post='2280305']
The explanation was given in this thread.
[/quote]
It must have been very well hidden then, since I couldn't find it.

Besides that, I've said that I'm willing to listen to everyone but nobody has approached me yet.

[shilo]

[quote name='Alterego' date='30 April 2010 - 12:37 AM' timestamp='1272577024' post='2280314']
cool story bro

Pretending you are 100% against it while being ready to crush anyone who interferes in what Gramlins are doing makes you look...well you know.
[/quote]
I like how you pointing out the hypocrisy either gets ignored, or countered with "during the Hegemony things were worse"...

[My Name Is Romance]

[quote name='Alterego' date='29 April 2010 - 05:37 PM' timestamp='1272577024' post='2280314']
cool story bro

Pretending you are 100% against it while being ready to crush anyone who interferes in what Gramlins are doing makes you look...well you know.
[/quote]

Will you ever venture to an irc channel and see if you can renegotiate the terms?

[Tromp]

[quote name='Alterego' date='29 April 2010 - 11:37 PM' timestamp='1272577024' post='2280314']
cool story bro

Pretending you are 100% against it while being ready to crush anyone who interferes in what Gramlins are doing makes you look...well you know.
[/quote]
"Anyone"...
Please explain yourself, I'm very curious.

[quote name='shilo' date='29 April 2010 - 11:40 PM' timestamp='1272577211' post='2280318']
I like how you pointing out the hypocrisy either gets ignored, or countered with "during the Hegemony things were worse"...
[/quote]
You can spout this nonsense about hypocrisy as much as you like, it doesn't make it true.

It gets a bit tiresome to see all those crocodile tears, so my advise to you would be to try something else... Like a constructive chat with those you are now ridiculing.

[shilo]

[quote name='Tromp' date='30 April 2010 - 12:44 AM' timestamp='1272577475' post='2280326']
"Anyone"...
Please explain yourself, I'm very curious.


You can spout this nonsense about hypocrisy as much as you like, it doesn't make it true.

It gets a bit tiresome to see all those crocodile tears, so my advise to you would be to try something else... Like a constructive chat with those you are now ridiculing.
[/quote]
It has been mentioned very constructively that any alliance, even if not bound by terms, trying to help us, will get destroyed by CnG+the rest. That is very clear, very simple.

[Alterego]

[quote name='Tromp' date='29 April 2010 - 10:44 PM' timestamp='1272577475' post='2280326']
"Anyone"...
Please explain yourself, I'm very curious.


You can spout this nonsense about hypocrisy as much as you like, it doesn't make it true.

It gets a bit tiresome to see all those crocodile tears, so my advise to you would be to try something else... Like a constructive chat with those you are now ridiculing.
[/quote]
Seriously using " say it as much as you like, it doesnt make it true" doesnt disprove any of the things that have been said and [u]apparently [/u]refuted by saying that.

You have said you are against Gramlins actions.
If they are attacked by someone who surrendered in the last war will you defend Gramlins if no one else does or as part as a group?

If they are attacked by someone who didnt surrender or fight in the last war will you defend Gramlins if no one else does or as part as a group?

Do you think any alliance who interviens and helps Gramlins should anyone try to help IRON & DAWN isnt supporting this action by Gramlins?