Jump to content

Ramirus: Scourge of the Grämlins


Recommended Posts

[quote name='Ramirus Maximus' date='30 June 2010 - 09:19 AM' timestamp='1277914766' post='2355249']
Funny that you posted this after our conversation. There's a word for intentionally misrepresenting. It's "lying".
[/quote]
I forgot to edit out the part about the NSO, silly me.

Perhaps I should have edited in the part where you threw Fark and MatthewPK under the bus to explain the context? :awesome:

That being said, I apologize for misrepresenting your argument, let me go edit it out.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 348
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

[quote name='Chron' date='30 June 2010 - 08:33 AM' timestamp='1277915562' post='2355266']Perhaps I should have edited in the part where you threw Fark and MatthewPK under the bus to explain the context? [/quote]
Fark leaked the first draft of it to IRON...a mistake for sure, but they're helping us like everyone else; a mistake doesn't mean we're "throwing them under the bus".

And I just called MatthewPK crazy...that's hardly "throwing him under the bus" either. He -is- crazy, you know.

[quote]That being said, I apologize for misrepresenting your argument, let me go edit it out.[/quote]
Apology accepted. Thanks.


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote]Whereas the undersigned alliances recognize that initiating a unwarranted global conflict by committing a blatant attack on another alliance without cause or provokation and with malice aforethought is such an action as to be considered abhorrant to internationally recognized standards of conduct and decency.
Whereas the collected nations of the alliances, TOP, IRON, TORN, FEAR, DAWN, TSO, [s]NSO[/s], Carthage and TMF are considered guilty of a breach of the above standards.[/quote]

Let me see if I understand this correctly.
This amendment is what IRON/DAWN have to agree to for the war to end?
And TOP, TORN, FEAR, TSO, [s]NSO[/s], Carthage, and TMF must also agree that they are guilty of a breach of the above standards?
If we do not we are all now responsible for the continuation of this war?
Grämlins why do they feel they have the right to ask for this amendment?

Here is an idea, Grämlins, IRON, and DAWN sign and post this

[b]The Grämlins, Independent Republic of Orange Nations, and Democratic Alliance of Wise Nations by signing this document hereby end all hostilities thus ending the War of the Words aka WoW.[/b]
There you go all you have to do is add sigs and its done.

I know IRON and DAWN have had this offer of white peace on the table for some time now. Ramirus stop asking for things you know people are not going to agree to like that joke of an amendment and just sign this and get it over with.

edit: to add quote tags & [s]NSO[/s]

Edited by ironchef
Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Ramirus Maximus' date='30 June 2010 - 10:09 AM' timestamp='1277917741' post='2355316']
Fark leaked the first draft of it to IRON...a mistake for sure, but they're helping us like everyone else; a mistake doesn't mean we're "throwing them under the bus".[/quote]

Well, saying that they were to blame for an admittedly pretty revealing oversight like this is rather insulting, you know. You could have just went "my bad", and it wouldn't have really been an issue. Considering Fark were directly fighting us, it stands to reason they'd know better than to include our alliance among the list of those that "declared a war without provocation or reason" or whatever.

[quote]And I just called MatthewPK crazy...that's hardly "throwing him under the bus" either. He -is- crazy, you know.[/quote]No need to be shy, you said quite a bit more than that.

At any rate, I did enjoy my conversation with you about the all-inclusive traits of morality.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Understanding Ramirus is simple: He would like everyone around him to be bound by the strictest interpretations of moral and ethical rules so he can go about being Machiavellian.

My question is this: If the membership of Grämlins goes below 15 members, does that make them a valid tech raid target?

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='zzzptm' date='30 June 2010 - 12:26 PM' timestamp='1277922396' post='2355414']
Understanding Ramirus is simple: He would like everyone around him to be bound by the strictest interpretations of moral and ethical rules so he can go about being Machiavellian.

My question is this: If the membership of Grämlins goes below 15 members, does that make them a valid tech raid target?
[/quote]

They still have a treaty with MHA which will protect them all the way till Ertyy, Matthew PK, and Ramirus are the last Gremlins.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting to actually see how deep Ram's delusion goes.

Also interesting to actually see what you're attempting to push into ESA. It's quite a hilarious attempt to rewrite history (one that several other SG posters have tried a lot, so it's not surprise that they back it); the pre-emptive attack was certainly not 'without cause or provovation' (the cause was explained in the DoWs), and nor did it 'initiate a global conflict' (the conflict was already going on). It is a good thing that you are not being allowed to push that through and honestly alliances that support that clause should be ashamed of their blatant attempt at revisionism.

Ertyy: I'm not sure what's 'backseat driving' about explaining a little Grämlins history, but yes, indeed, in the old days Grämlins was a direct democracy. Around the middle of 2007 we decided that the alliance was getting too big for that to be practical and implemented the rank system, and at some point (in 2008 I think) the vote weights were changed from 1-2-3 to 1-3-5.

Hal: Several of the Grämlins are making a shot at rebuilding the alliance in Ninjas. I doubt you'll see any come back now the Grämlins name is so tainted and the material structures that gave it enough power that anyone cared what we said are gone.

Ironically, Ram is partially correct on one point. The old Grämlins were less idealistic, we recognised that in certain cases pure idealism and stubbornness would result in us being destroyed for no good purpose. We did what we could, when we could, to improve the world, and did not destroy ourselves where we could not. (For example actively resisting some of the Continuum activities we seriously disagreed with, which would have got us killed.) He is now providing the world with a demonstration of how dogmatic adherence to a point of principle when too few people agree with it can destroy your alliance. So thanks for proving our pragmatic side correct!

And one final factual point, we definitely did break the letter of the Lux treaty, and TOP were justifiably angry about that. I was under the impression that that had been explained, apologised for and was no longer an issue after the discussions on the matter shortly after Karma, though. And yes, we did it for the right reasons, as I think most in TOP would now acknowledge, as most in the IRON front of Karma acknowledged that we did what we did regarding peace terms for the right reasons.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Chron' date='30 June 2010 - 09:19 AM' timestamp='1277918355' post='2355326']Well, saying that they were to blame for an admittedly pretty revealing oversight like this is rather insulting, you know.[/quote]
It was my oversight, not theirs, as you well know since I told you directly. Their mistake was in leaking it, which isn't a big deal since everyone has seen the corrected version now, and just about everyone agrees with it.

Again, more information you already know. This is like if I told you my real name was John, and you came here to say "Ramirus' real name is David!"

It's called 'lying'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='30 June 2010 - 08:53 PM' timestamp='1277923976' post='2355448']
Also interesting to actually see what you're attempting to push into ESA. It's quite a hilarious attempt to rewrite history (one that several other SG posters have tried a lot, so it's not surprise that they back it); the pre-emptive attack was certainly not 'without cause or provovation' (the cause was explained in the DoWs), and nor did it 'initiate a global conflict' (the conflict was already going on). It is a good thing that you are not being allowed to push that through and honestly alliances that support that clause should be ashamed of their blatant attempt at revisionism.
[/quote]
Is this really you? Or are you trying to rewrite history yourself...

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='29 January 2010 - 02:58 PM' timestamp='1264769896' post='2141086']
I have to say that I'm generally a fan of the coalition v coalition approach to war – i.e. if you enter a coalition war you can enter at any point on the opposing side. However, unless I'm missing something, C&G was not a part of the war, and in fact had strong ties to both sides making its entrance less than inevitable.[/quote]

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Ramirus Maximus' date='30 June 2010 - 03:02 PM' timestamp='1277924559' post='2355457']
It was my oversight, not theirs, as you well know since I told you directly. Their mistake was in leaking it, which isn't a big deal since everyone has seen the corrected version now, and just about everyone agrees with it.
[/quote]
I feel, and this may be a stretch, like you used my alliance's name in a legal document without consulting me. I assure you that we have a number of objections to your proposed amendment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Ramirus Maximus' date='30 June 2010 - 03:02 PM' timestamp='1277924559' post='2355457']
isn't a big deal since everyone has seen the corrected version now, and just about everyone agrees with it.[/quote]

Please stop trying to act as if this amendment is overwhelmingly supported by signatories. The entire defeated side has not been consulted.

[quote name='Ramirus Maximus' date='30 June 2010 - 03:02 PM' timestamp='1277924559' post='2355457']
It's called 'lying'.
[/quote]

Also, since you are monitoring this thread I will quote my earlier post in hopes of a response.

[quote] Being an individual who clearly values morality (or at least pretends to) do you think that there could be anything moral about IRON's opposition to your demands. I'll rephrase in a manner that you can directly address my argument. If I understand you correctly, you are attempting to add in "war guilt" clause to the ESA, yet you are aware that some if not all of the defeated parties do not believe themselves to be guilty for the war's origins. It isn't that we don't think we did anything "wrong" as you say, it is that we do not feel culpable for DoW's beyond our own. We don't feel we need to take responsibility for a war either \m/ or NpO began. I realize you like to believe yourself to be on the side of the "just" but it seems to that the party "in the right" is a matter of perspective. Unless it is you who would like to act like a child and say, "lol u started it!"

Given that you are attempting to foist your interpretation of events onto the defeated parties of the ESA, do you believe IRON and DAWN could be objecting to your continued aggression on principle, rather than simply being evil "realpolitikers".

How is requiring an alliance to give up their intellectual freedom (ie demanding they agree with you) in exchange for peace any different than a tech "bribe".[/quote]

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='30 June 2010 - 11:53 AM' timestamp='1277923976' post='2355448']
Interesting to actually see how deep Ram's delusion goes....

And one final factual point, we definitely did break the letter of the Lux treaty, and TOP were justifiably angry about that. I was under the impression that that had been explained, apologised for and was no longer an issue after the discussions on the matter shortly after Karma, though. And yes, we did it for the right reasons, as I think most in TOP would now acknowledge, as most in the IRON front of Karma acknowledged that we did what we did regarding peace terms for the right reasons.
[/quote]


And if I remember correctly it was Matthew PK who came to our joint forum to explain that he understood that we were upset that their obligations had been breached but that you in Gremlins felt you had no choice and that you thought you were doing the right thing. He and other Gramlins were also at pains to emphasis that they were still our close friends and that we should not take their move as in any way a sign that they were moving away from that friendship....

I think that most of you who said those things at the time truly believed it. But in hindsight Ram had much different ideas for both our alliances. And now I see Ram is desperate to try to rewrite history in order to try to save some semblence of respect.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Schattenmann' date='29 June 2010 - 07:41 PM' timestamp='1277854843' post='2354513']
Guy's an amateur.
[/quote]

I don't know, he has a thousand years of doing this compared to you.

Edited by Emperor Marx
Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='crazy canuck' date='30 June 2010 - 03:35 PM' timestamp='1277926541' post='2355495']
And if I remember correctly it was Matthew PK who came to our joint forum to explain that he understood that we were upset that their obligations had been breached but that you in Gremlins felt you had no choice and that you thought you were doing the right thing. He and other Gramlins were also at pains to emphasis that they were still our close friends and that we should not take their move as in any way a sign that they were moving away from that friendship....

I think that most of you who said those things at the time truly believed it. But in hindsight Ram had much different ideas for both our alliances. And now I see Ram is desperate to try to rewrite history in order to try to save some semblence of respect.
[/quote]

Once again Ram is not rewriting anything. He has held that point of view from day one. Just because he didnt publicize it to everyone doesnt mean he just made it up now.

Initially it was Boondock and I that came over to explain things.

Also as Praetor at the time i dont think i apologized for doing what we did since there was nothing wrong with it, I said i was sorry we had to do it (Boondock might have apologized but he wasnt gov).

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Chron' date='30 June 2010 - 10:19 AM' timestamp='1277918355' post='2355326']
No need to be shy, you said quite a bit more than that.

At any rate, I did enjoy my conversation with you about the all-inclusive traits of morality.
[/quote]

I am 100% certain that Ram hasn't said anything about me that he wouldn't tell me directly.
Among these things are that I am or would be (as a result of taking an action):
Crazy, stupid, wasting my time, a traitor, a fool, a lapdog etc etc.

In fact, he has on more than one occasion forwarded me IRC conversations he's had in which he relays these sentiments to others... about how my ideas or posts are stupid and/or crazy.

Sticks and stones may break my bones but word make me cry all the way home to mommy.
If somebody would form a judgment about me based solely on the comments of another then they're really not worth my time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tromp: At the time of writing that post, I [i]was[/i] missing something, which Archon revealed in his large post about the matter – that post clearly demonstrated that C&G were involved and were planning to get involved militarily if the opponents entered where they were expected to. After I posted the text which you quoted there, I discovered that I had been missing some points about C&G's position (that they were already setting themselves up on the 'other side').

Remember that the post you quoted was made immediately after the TOP declaration and I hadn't got the full story at that point. That's different from trying to push a revised view of history after the fact, which is what Ram's trying here. (By [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=79441&view=findpost&p=2141875]that evening[/url] I was saying that 'C&G would probably have counter-attacked', which was essentially confimed by Archon later.)

Before someone takes the the wrong way, I think pre-emptive attacks are dumb, generally unjustifiable and this one certainly shouldn't have been done. But it did not start the war (the war was already taking place) and it was not without cause or provocation, even if such cause and provocation was (in my opinion and I'm assuming yours too) not sufficient to justify military action.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='King Chill I' date='30 June 2010 - 12:47 PM' timestamp='1277927250' post='2355504']
Once again Ram is not rewriting anything. He has held that point of view from day one. Just because he didnt publicize it to everyone doesnt mean he just made it up now.

Initially it was Boondock and I that came over to explain things.

Also as Praetor at the time i dont think i apologized for doing what we did since there was nothing wrong with it, I said i was sorry we had to do it (Boondock might have apologized but he wasnt gov).
[/quote]

You may not have apologized. But a great deal of others did because of course they all thought there was something to apologize for. One thing is for sure, at no time did you step in to try to correct everyone else that was coming to us to apologize. If what you are now saying is accurate then at the very least you let us believe that the heart felt apologies that your members were giving us was a reflection of the way Gramlins felt about the situation. That seems a tad dishonest to me.

But at the very least I am beginning to better understand how things fell apart between our two alliances.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='zzzptm' date='30 June 2010 - 02:26 PM' timestamp='1277922396' post='2355414']
Understanding Ramirus is simple: He would like everyone around him to be bound by the strictest interpretations of moral and ethical rules so he can go about being Machiavellian.

My question is this: If the membership of Grämlins goes below 15 members, does that make them a valid tech raid target?
[/quote]
If you're willing to go through MHA then yes

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Ramirus Maximus' date='30 June 2010 - 12:02 PM' timestamp='1277924559' post='2355457']
It was my oversight, not theirs, as you well know since I told you directly.

It's called 'lying'.
[/quote]
You admitted it was your oversight? That's honestly news to me, since in that entire conversation you more or less said it was Fark's fault and then began a tirade against Bob Janova, which then lead into a discussion of morality, before saying morality doesnt really matter.

As a matter of fact, you didn't say anything was your fault during our conversation, you just said everything that happened in this situation was everyone else's doing.

You even insisted Schatt had been the one to beg you for this interview, to boot. That the OWF doesn't matter (and yet here you are), and that MatthewPK doesn't know what he's talking about (among other things).

Im not lying, and I somewhat take offense to the implication that I am.

Edited by Chron
Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='crazy canuck' date='30 June 2010 - 04:46 PM' timestamp='1277930746' post='2355642']
You may not have apologized. But a great deal of others did because of course they all thought there was something to apologize for. One thing is for sure, at no time did you step in to try to correct everyone else that was coming to us to apologize. If what you are now saying is accurate then at the very least you let us believe that the heart felt apologies that your members were giving us was a reflection of the way Gramlins felt about the situation. That seems a tad dishonest to me.

But at the very least I am beginning to better understand how things fell apart between our two alliances.
[/quote]

You have access to the thread. You can go re-read it at your convenience.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='King Chill I' date='01 July 2010 - 02:02 AM' timestamp='1277910127' post='2355176']
Ram from the begging has believed that Gre never broke the Lux. His logic is fairly simple, you can e-lawyer it as much as you want but it wont change its validity. NPO started an aggressive war (which by my own logic is arguable) and IRON supported that war by entering on NPO's side.[/quote]
I find it amusing that you preface your comments by stating that:

- Ram's logic is valid;
- Any alternative position that is put to challenge his logic is 'e-lawyering'; and
- That your logic finds his logic wanting.

This mish-mash of fallacy and conflicting argument indicates that you seem to be just as dishonest as he is about the matter.

Edit: Just to clarify the issue in black and white: Gre broke the Citadel treaty by declaring war on IRON, an OTP of TOP. End of story.

Edited by Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz
Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='King Chill I' date='30 June 2010 - 01:59 PM' timestamp='1277931570' post='2355679']
You have access to the thread. You can go re-read it at your convenience.
[/quote]


I think you misunderstand me. I take your word that you yourself did not apologize. Even if I was to go back through that very lengthy thread to search for all your posts and found out that you had misremembered what you said that would not prove anything other then you have a bad memory. I am not interested in that. I trust that you are accurate in your recollection of what you personally said. What I am more interested in is the point that a lot of Gramlins came to us in that thread and said they understood why we were very upset, they acknowledged the breach and they said they were sorry but they hoped that we understood that they thought they were doing the right thing.

Your argument is that Ram isnt trying to rewrite history but at the very least he is trying his best to ignore it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='30 June 2010 - 04:35 PM' timestamp='1277930114' post='2355617']
Tromp: At the time of writing that post, I [i]was[/i] missing something, which Archon revealed in his large post about the matter – that post clearly demonstrated that C&G were involved and were planning to get involved militarily if the opponents entered where they were expected to. After I posted the text which you quoted there, I discovered that I had been missing some points about C&G's position (that they were already setting themselves up on the 'other side').

Remember that the post you quoted was made immediately after the TOP declaration and I hadn't got the full story at that point. That's different from trying to push a revised view of history after the fact, which is what Ram's trying here. (By [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=79441&view=findpost&p=2141875]that evening[/url] I was saying that 'C&G would probably have counter-attacked', which was essentially confimed by Archon later.)

Before someone takes the the wrong way, I think pre-emptive attacks are dumb, generally unjustifiable and this one certainly shouldn't have been done. But it did not start the war (the war was already taking place) and it was not without cause or provocation, even if such cause and provocation was (in my opinion and I'm assuming yours too) not sufficient to justify military action.
[/quote]
http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=80942&st=0&p=2184044&#entry2184044

That's funny, because he doesn't once say we were going to enter the war. In fact, he says we tried harder to end it after we found out what was going to happen.

If you're going to rewrite history, try not to do it about something that is well documented.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Schattenmann' date='29 June 2010 - 08:48 PM' timestamp='1277869676' post='2354811']
I doubt anyone commenting on the Machiavelli comment has ever read 5 lines of Machiavelli.
[/quote]

I agree for the most part. Although I would like to the think that education systems are a bit better than that so at least some people who invoke the name have actually read at least part of his work. Machiavelli and Adam Smith are similar in that their names are often invoked but usually for things the authors probably would never have agreed to.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...