The Something or Other Accords 2.0

[rsoxbronco1]

Can we bring back the the Sectumsempra Treaty now?

[Voytek]

[quote name='Ezequiel' date='13 June 2010 - 03:00 PM' timestamp='1276405203' post='2335897']
It's really not a good sign if you have to put in a Civility clause in a treaty... Is it not?


Ezequiel.
[/quote]

There's something vaguely frightening going on with your negatives here.

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='Fernando12' date='12 June 2010 - 12:18 PM' timestamp='1276359515' post='2335062']
So when does SF and CnG merge to one hugiganticnormous alliance happen?
[/quote]
They don't, even if through their treaties they are de facto one big alliance of nations. Its the illusion of it consisting of many sovereign alliances making their own decisions that motivates enough leaders to put the work into maintaining such a large networks of allied blocs and alliances tied together, ready to attack those who pose a threat any of them as long as they do as told. If they didn't have so many individual alliances each with their own outside treaties they wouldn't be nearly as connected.

Edited June 14, 2010 by Methrage

[Badpoet]

[quote name='Methrage' date='14 June 2010 - 12:31 PM' timestamp='1276511451' post='2337073']
They don't, even if through their treaties they are de facto one big alliance of nations. Its the illusion of it consisting of many sovereign alliances making their own decisions that motivates enough leaders to put the work into maintaining such a large networks of allied blocs and alliances tied together, ready to attack those who pose a threat any of them as long as they do as told. If they didn't have so many individual alliances each with their own outside treaties they wouldn't be nearly as connected.
[/quote]
If this were true, you could say the same for every official and unofficial bloc there is/was or any group of alliances that have mutual allies.

As for the treaty - congratz, I guess.

[Penkala]

[quote name='Methrage' date='14 June 2010 - 06:31 AM' timestamp='1276511451' post='2337073']
They don't, even if through their treaties they are de facto one big alliance of nations. Its the illusion of it consisting of many sovereign alliances making their own decisions that motivates enough leaders to put the work into maintaining such a large networks of allied blocs and alliances tied together, ready to attack those who pose a threat any of them as long as they do as told. If they didn't have so many individual alliances each with their own outside treaties they wouldn't be nearly as connected.
[/quote]

You do realize this is one of the few military-class treaties linking SF and CnG, right?

[DictatatorDan]

[color="#FF0000"]Why MK Why?[/color]

[Voytek]

[quote name='DictatatorDan' date='15 June 2010 - 12:34 AM' timestamp='1276526031' post='2337178']
[color="#FF0000"]Why MK Why?[/color]
[/quote]
We like GOD, GOD likes us, [size="1"]everyone finally got off their butts[/size] so we signed a treaty with each other.

Red doesn't really suit you by the way.

[jer]

Could this be the beginning of GOD's move away from SuperFriends and towards CnG?

Edited June 14, 2010 by Aimee Mann

[potato]

[quote name='Aimee Mann' date='14 June 2010 - 05:15 PM' timestamp='1276528515' post='2337192']
Could this be the beginning of GOD's move away from SuperFriends and towards CnG?
[/quote]

Yes, that's exactly what this treaty is about. And I'm glad you asked because you're the first to make such a claim. You read in us like an open book.

[Sandwich Controversy]

[quote name='Penkala' date='14 June 2010 - 07:31 AM' timestamp='1276515061' post='2337092']
You do realize this is one of the few military-class treaties linking SF and CnG, right?
[/quote]
In fact, one of two, both of which involve MK!

[jer]

[quote name='potato' date='14 June 2010 - 04:28 PM' timestamp='1276529311' post='2337200']
Yes, that's exactly what this treaty is about. And I'm glad you asked because you're the first to make such a claim. You read in us like an open book.
[/quote]
Odd that you'd reply to a fairly simple and harmless question about GOD's foreign policy with such barbed and defensive sarcasm. What's that about? Thanks for responding, anyway.

Edited June 14, 2010 by Aimee Mann

[Arthur Blair]

[quote name='Aimee Mann' date='14 June 2010 - 04:44 PM' timestamp='1276530245' post='2337212']
Odd that you'd reply to a fairly simple and harmless question about GOD's foreign policy with such barbed and defensive sarcasm. What's that about? Thanks for responding, anyway.
[/quote]

He's hiding something...

[lebubu]

[quote name='Aimee Mann' date='14 June 2010 - 05:44 PM' timestamp='1276530245' post='2337212']
Odd that you'd reply to a fairly simple and harmless question about GOD's foreign policy with such barbed and defensive sarcasm. What's that about? Thanks for responding, anyway.
[/quote]

You're clearly on to something here.

[jer]

More sarcastic replies from Camp MK. No need to be so tense and uptight guys, just relax.

Edited June 14, 2010 by Aimee Mann

[Voytek]

[quote name='Aimee Mann' date='15 June 2010 - 01:50 AM' timestamp='1276530605' post='2337221']
More sarcastic replies from Camp MK. No need to be so tense and uptight guys, just relax.
[/quote]
Uptight? Who are you calling uptight? What do you know? We have ways of making you talk!!

Edited June 14, 2010 by Voytek

[Quinoa Rex]

[quote name='Aimee Mann' date='14 June 2010 - 11:50 AM' timestamp='1276530605' post='2337221']
More sarcastic replies from Camp MK. No need to be so tense and uptight guys, just relax.
[/quote]
Is your [i]modus operandi[/i] to read a statement and then automatically assume the implication is the exact opposite?

[jer]

It is not.

[potato]

[quote name='Aimee Mann' date='14 June 2010 - 05:44 PM' timestamp='1276530245' post='2337212']
Odd that you'd reply to a fairly simple and harmless question about GOD's foreign policy with such barbed and defensive sarcasm. What's that about? Thanks for responding, anyway.
[/quote]

I'm hiding something.

















But, really, when noobs and morons make such a silly assumption, it's annoying enough. But you've been here around enough to not make that oh so funny and original joke. Unless you enjoy looking like a complete tool. But that's up to you, really.

[Zombie Glaucon]

[quote name='Seth Muscarella' date='12 June 2010 - 07:51 PM' timestamp='1276390250' post='2335565']
Making sense of Rebel Virgina is like interpreting a pattern from a random number generator; any sense you may find is just your mind looking for order.
[/quote]

Actually random number generators (well, it's usually pseudo-RNGs on computers) are quite subject to analysis. This is how you tell if their output is sufficiently random (for your desired level of "sufficiently").

[jer]

[quote name='potato' date='14 June 2010 - 05:39 PM' timestamp='1276533573' post='2337264']
But, really, when noobs and morons make such a silly assumption, it's annoying enough. But you've been here around enough to not make that oh so funny and original joke. Unless you enjoy looking like a complete tool. But that's up to you, really.
[/quote]
You are calling me a complete tool for asking a basic question about another alliance's foreign policy goals? My question was a bit of idle speculation at most (not a hostile assumption, not a joke at GOD's expense, or anything else) and I've been met with an insult and a bunch of sarcastic responses, all from an alliance whom the question was not even aimed at.

Really, there is no need for such hostility here. I guess I'll ask again: why so defensive?

[Kzoppistan]

This isn't surprising in the least, but congratulations.

[Voytek]

[quote name='Aimee Mann' date='15 June 2010 - 02:45 AM' timestamp='1276533941' post='2337273']Really, there is no need for such hostility here. I guess I'll ask again: why so defensive?[/quote]

We're hiding a terrible secret that you're close to uncovering

[potato]

[quote name='Aimee Mann' date='14 June 2010 - 06:45 PM' timestamp='1276533941' post='2337273']
You are calling me a complete tool for asking a basic question about another alliance's foreign policy goals? My question was a bit of idle speculation at most (not a hostile assumption, not a joke at GOD's expense, or anything else) and I've been met with an insult and a bunch of sarcastic responses, all from an alliance whom the question was not even aimed at.

Really, there is no need for such hostility here. I guess I'll ask again: why so defensive?
[/quote]

Don't feel flattered, I'm hostile to everyone.

And yes, you do sound like a tool for saying ONE treaty is going to completely change GOD's foreign policy or that they're going to leave their bloc because of that ONE treaty. Did you ask NPO when they were joining Terra Cotta when they signed with NSO? Or OPP when they signed with TPF? Or Purple with their Invicta/Legion/Olympus treaties?

[Penkala]

[quote name='Aimee Mann' date='14 June 2010 - 11:15 AM' timestamp='1276528515' post='2337192']
Could this be the beginning of GOD's move away from SuperFriends and towards CnG?
[/quote]

I sure hope so.

[quote]Odd that you'd reply to a fairly simple and harmless question about GOD's foreign policy with such barbed and defensive sarcasm. What's that about? Thanks for responding, anyway.[/quote]

We're all a little pissed that someone like you walked in and figured it out: This treaty is really just the beginning; GOD will be canceling their (dozen maybe?) treaties with SF alliances and joining CnG. RoK is next.

[NLights]

Nice grouping?

No, I can't pull that off. Congrats on your treaty!