Locke Posted September 9, 2010 Report Share Posted September 9, 2010 [quote name='Hakim' timestamp='1284071017' post='2448071'] wow, i mean wow....and you called for better diplomacy and understanding in the OWF? So as long as you lead I am to assume that any treaty you sign is not worth the words because you can decide to downgrade it yourself based on which side you are closer to at the moment...good to know. [/quote] Well, perhaps not better diplomacy, but she's promoting more understanding. More people than ever understand UPN's FA "commitments." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hakim Posted September 9, 2010 Report Share Posted September 9, 2010 [quote name='Locke' timestamp='1284072469' post='2448116'] Well, perhaps not better diplomacy, but she's promoting more understanding. More people than ever understand UPN's FA "commitments." [/quote] I disagree I think by this statement more people than ever are understanding that your "commitments" are clouded as ever... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locke Posted September 9, 2010 Report Share Posted September 9, 2010 (edited) [quote name='Hakim' timestamp='1284072737' post='2448117'] I disagree I think by this statement more people than ever are understanding that your "commitments" are clouded as ever... [/quote] ..."your?" I'm not in UPN, buddy, never have been. And for that matter, I was agreeing with you. My point was that now more people understand how UPN treats their treaty partners. Edited September 9, 2010 by Locke Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hakim Posted September 9, 2010 Report Share Posted September 9, 2010 [quote name='Locke' timestamp='1284073195' post='2448124'] ..."your?" I'm not in UPN, buddy, never have been. And for that matter, I was agreeing with you. My point was that now more people understand how UPN treats their treaty partners. [/quote] My bad, i misread your statement...it is clearer now. and I agree Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thrash Posted September 10, 2010 Report Share Posted September 10, 2010 [quote name='Peggy_Sue' timestamp='1284048523' post='2447706'] and FEAR and UPN have been treating the MDoAP as an ODP for quite a while now. [/quote] This disappoints me, Peggy. It's not like you to say that, I hope you said it in haste. I don't want to have to wonder what UPN treats our ODP as. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locke Posted September 10, 2010 Report Share Posted September 10, 2010 [quote name='Thrash' timestamp='1284078028' post='2448227'] This disappoints me, Peggy. It's not like you to say that, I hope you said it in haste. I don't want to have to wonder what UPN treats our ODP as. [/quote] She's said it several times, so I think she plans to stick to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duncan King Posted September 10, 2010 Report Share Posted September 10, 2010 (edited) Called this months ago, so I can't say I'm surprised. Congrats to UPN for getting closer to its masters in Supercomplaints. Also congrats to FEAR for being rid of an ally that wouldn't defend you. Edited September 10, 2010 by Duncan King Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stealthkill Posted September 10, 2010 Report Share Posted September 10, 2010 [quote name='Duncan King' timestamp='1284086455' post='2448367'] Congrats to UPN for getting closer to its masters in Supercomplaints. [/quote] I could be wrong, but I feel you are implying that we want this sack of fail on our sides. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orangbaik Posted September 10, 2010 Report Share Posted September 10, 2010 (edited) o/ FEAR FEAR you have NEW 4 mill NS that worth at 8 mill when it count at war having treaty with 1 warriors alliance is better than have 1 diplomatic alliance congrat at losing death weight. Edited September 10, 2010 by orangbaik Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bones Malone Posted September 10, 2010 Report Share Posted September 10, 2010 Can't fault UPN for clearing up their treaties. Sad to see this one go though. I was around when it was signed and always thought FEAR was a good group of kids. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted September 10, 2010 Report Share Posted September 10, 2010 [quote name='Stealthkill' timestamp='1284088711' post='2448429'] I could be wrong, but I feel you are implying that we want this sack of fail on our sides. [/quote] Well, you did cancel the Citrus Express, but you still share a number of treaty connections with your former ally. So ... life is hard eh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salmia Posted September 10, 2010 Report Share Posted September 10, 2010 Right so you see a potential war where your treaties will clash? News flash - the political climate will change over time. What are you going to do when things change in a year or two? You're aligning your FA based on the current climate? See how long that treaty lasts you when things change. So you'll end up having clashing treaties in the future, going to cancel them all too? I say FEAR takes the beer and doesn't share nicely with UPN. Leave the payment to UPN though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raasaa Posted September 10, 2010 Report Share Posted September 10, 2010 [quote name='The MVP' timestamp='1284070662' post='2448063'] I support an ODN/NpO/UPN bloc. Two alliances only bother showing up if they win and the other thinks they can switch sides on a war they started and let their allies burn. I'm sure UPN made this decision based on these merits. ODN/NpO/UPN MADP bloc, one that will be treated and cherished as an ODP. [/quote] If that bloc were to ever happen, i will quit CN [quote name='orangbaik' timestamp='1284090829' post='2448489'] o/ FEAR FEAR you have NEW 4 mill NS that worth at 8 mill when it count at war having treaty with 1 warriors alliance is better than have 1 diplomatic alliance [/quote] Where do we sign up and get in line for a treaty with the warriors Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R3nowned Posted September 10, 2010 Report Share Posted September 10, 2010 [quote name='Peggy_Sue' timestamp='1284048523' post='2447706'] Wall of text [/quote] Do you read what you type? You pretty much called your own alliance a war avoiding infra hugging alliance. If you like and respect an alliance, you treaty them. I thought that was what treaties were for. The reason for your cancellation is complete BS considering the history of this treaty. (The second your is directed at UPN, rather than Peggy) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonVox Posted September 10, 2010 Report Share Posted September 10, 2010 The history of both alliances diverged over time, I don't see why this cancellation is so shocking or bad. If UPN and FEAR happen to be on the opposite sides of a future conflict, there won't be an entangling treaty between us. On the other hand, if they end up on the same side, the absence of a treaty doesn't matter anyways. Both FEAR and UPN get more room to maneuver. All UPN knew was that we cannot have the same situation where allies landed on two sides of a conflict. Friendship is a different matter and needs no treaty to represent Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raasaa Posted September 10, 2010 Report Share Posted September 10, 2010 [quote name='DonVox' timestamp='1284117195' post='2448736'] The history of both alliances diverged over time, I don't see why this cancellation is so shocking or bad. If UPN and FEAR happen to be on the opposite sides of a future conflict, there won't be an entangling treaty between us. On the other hand, if they end up on the same side, the absence of a treaty doesn't matter anyways. Both FEAR and UPN get more room to maneuver. All UPN knew was that we cannot have the same situation where allies landed on two sides of a conflict. Friendship is a different matter and needs no treaty to represent [/quote] The cancellation and the reasoning behind it is not the issue. The issue is, WHY did you pick NpO + ODN over FEAR ?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MinuteVariance Posted September 10, 2010 Report Share Posted September 10, 2010 Lots of distasteful bitterness in this thread. I'm glad Peggy_Sue can rise above it, as can her allies and friends. Stay on course UPN, you're allies in Polaris support you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClashCityRocker Posted September 10, 2010 Report Share Posted September 10, 2010 [quote name='DonVox' timestamp='1284117195' post='2448736'] All UPN knew was that we cannot have the same situation where allies landed on two sides of a conflict. Friendship is a different matter and needs no treaty to represent [/quote] Unless you limit yourself to one ally, you'll always have the risk of allies ending up on opposite sides. By sheer numbers had you had this policy 6 months ago you'd had canceled on ODN. Similarly youd have canceled on Polar during karma. Your policy is also ridiculous because its assuming war scenarios that havnt happened yet. You can all stop the patronizing crap that this is somehow for our benefit or a mutual decision, you're trying to solidify yourselves on the winning side on a conflict that hasnt even happened yet because you dont want to look like cowards for someday canceling in the midst of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duncan King Posted September 10, 2010 Report Share Posted September 10, 2010 [quote name='Stealthkill' timestamp='1284088711' post='2448429'] I could be wrong, but I feel you are implying that we want this sack of fail on our sides. [/quote] More like that "sack of fail" (as you so gallantly put it) wants desperately to be on your side. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grumpdogg Posted September 10, 2010 Report Share Posted September 10, 2010 There's plenty of sacks of fail around that suckled Q, conveniently decided they would flip, didn't really have to fight and are now protected by SG. If you're going to hate on UPN, at least be consistent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alterego Posted September 10, 2010 Report Share Posted September 10, 2010 (edited) [quote name='DonVox' timestamp='1284117195' post='2448736'] All UPN knew was that we cannot have the same situation where allies landed on two sides of a conflict. Friendship is a different matter and needs no treaty to represent [/quote] If you wont lift a finger to help your friends when you have an iron clad agreement to do so you are hardly going to lift a finger to help your friends when you dont have a such an agreement. Im still waiting to hear UPNs defination of what being a friend means. From what ive seen it just means you talk often but would rather see them burn alone than help them in any way. [quote name='MinuteVariance' timestamp='1284119074' post='2448754'] Stay on course UPN, you're allies in Polaris support you. [/quote] You will find this support wont be returned if it puts them at any kind of risk Edited September 10, 2010 by Alterego Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Wally Posted September 10, 2010 Report Share Posted September 10, 2010 [quote name='Stealthkill' timestamp='1284088711' post='2448429'] I could be wrong, but I feel you are implying that we want this sack of fail on our sides. [/quote] Do sacks of fail stop enemy rounds as well as sand bags? Maybe there's an upside Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hakim Posted September 11, 2010 Report Share Posted September 11, 2010 [quote name='King Wally' timestamp='1284158137' post='2449156'] Do sacks of fail stop enemy rounds as well as sand bags? Maybe there's an upside [/quote] Well said.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pingu Posted September 11, 2010 Report Share Posted September 11, 2010 [quote name='raasaa' timestamp='1284099624' post='2448658'] If that bloc were to ever happen, i will quit CN [/quote] With this kind of incentive, how can it not come to pass? I'll have a word with our foreign affairs chaps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MinuteVariance Posted September 11, 2010 Report Share Posted September 11, 2010 (edited) [quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1284139535' post='2448911'] You will find this support wont be returned if it puts them at any kind of risk [/quote] Yes, I [i]have[/i] been reading this thread (and that [i]other[/i] one) so I am aware of what some people [i]think[/i] is the case. It doesn't matter how many times you repeat this opinion, even if you say it over and over...and over...and over...and over...as some of you seem to be so amused by doing. It doesn't make it true. The truth is we have a treaty that both parties have agreed to stand by. What you believe, and what I believe is just so much hot air, until proven out by events. We should be using it for something productive like filling up balloons, rather than this waste of ePaper. Edit: wording Edited September 11, 2010 by MinuteVariance Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.