An Announcement from the Mushroom Kingdom

[LittleRena]

[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1290165223' post='2517297']
Here, MK is informing people that there is a diplomatic disagreement with the NPO. We though people would be interested. Despite your assertions that this thread is below you, you have deemed it interesting enough to not only post, but to search through several members posting histories.

So if you're going to try and claim we're inconsistent, at least research properly. And if you're going to run with the "we don't care" argument, it's probably best to not show such a high level of interest yourself.[/quote]

You're doing your lundry in public, regardless of the OP, everything after is what you or other members seem to like to put down, so yes, you are inconsistant. As with my intrest, I have a lot of free time and there is little else to discuss, there's a lack of annoucments, maybe because people like you like to put down those 250k milestone topics, if there where more of those, I'd be ignoring this topic.

Research wise, I did little, I just searched for the word lundry because that stood out, didn't go any deeper than that.

Really, I couldn't care less about the discussions in this topic, once it's died, I will have forgotten about it, in the meantime, it's just something to talk about and I will talk about anything, I would go as far to say something about nothing half the time

[Banksy]

[quote name='LittleRena' timestamp='1290166307' post='2517304']
You're doing your lundry in public, regardless of the OP, everything after is what you or other members seem to like to put down, so yes, you are inconsistant. As with my intrest, I have a lot of free time and there is little else to discuss, there's a lack of annoucments, maybe because people like you like to put down those 250k milestone topics, if there where more of those, I'd be ignoring this topic.
[/quote]
It's like you didn't read my post. Two of the posts you quoted had nothing to do with 'airing lundry' [sic] as both of the posts were in jest. They just contained the word "laundry." This is why it is inadvisable to cherry pick. The other quote covered a different situation. There is nothing to 'air' here, because it is a statement of fact. By extending your logic, we should refuse to have war announcements (we don't want to air any laundry!) or treaty cancellations. So if you're going to claim that we are inconsistent, you need to do more than just say we are, and actually show some substantive inconsistencies. Furthermore, none of the members who you quoted are in government, and had nothing to do with the current response. Claiming that MK is inconsistent because a government response is different to a couple of jokes made my members some months previously either indicates complete ignorance of cybernations alliances and the idiocy of the accuser or it indicates.. no, wait, that's it.

Now, your interest is what makes this tangent so funny. You claimed earlier in your thread that this announcement was worthless, and yet now you admit that it's the best thing here and have devoted time to it. If 'inconsistencies' are your latest gimmick, then you might want to remove the plank from that eye. And don't claim that i'm twisting your words, because apparently context doesn't matter to you.

[IMG]http://i921.photobucket.com/albums/ad52/Banksycn/emote/025.gif[/IMG]

[LittleRena]

[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1290167812' post='2517314']
And don't claim that i'm twisting your words, because apparently context doesn't matter to you.
[/quote]

Twist my words all you want, makes no diffrence to me, I don't have a reputation or public image to maintain.

[Poyplemonkeys]

Great job ignoring all the relevant points he made

[Rocky Horror]

[quote name='LittleRena' timestamp='1290169100' post='2517320']
Twist my words all you want, makes no diffrence to me, I don't have a reputation or public image to maintain.
[/quote]The last refuge of the defeated, the meta-argument.

[LittleRena]

[quote name='Poyplemonkeys' timestamp='1290173355' post='2517348']
Great job ignoring all the relevant points he made
[/quote]

Nothing in this topic is relevent to me, so it doesn't matter if I ignore them or acknowladge them, the dispute is one between MK and NPO which should have been delt with in private, as has been mentioned and has been ignored by pretty much everyone.

[Voytek]

[quote name='LittleRena' timestamp='1290174440' post='2517353']Nothing in this topic is relevent to me,[/quote]
And yet you keep posting because...

[LittleRena]

[quote name='Voytek' timestamp='1290174589' post='2517354']
And yet you keep posting because...
[/quote]
It's a free country.

[Voytek]

[quote name='LittleRena' timestamp='1290174626' post='2517355']
It's a free country.
[/quote]
[i]not for much longer[/i]

[potato]

[quote name='LittleRena' timestamp='1290174626' post='2517355']
It's a free country.
[/quote]

What is?

[Charles the Great]

its like when construction workers make fun of a guy for something and he gets mad..........they will continue mostly because they got a reaction.

[LittleRena]

You know, if my comments are really bothing you, you could just say something and I'll stop responding, but if not, I can keep going. As I said earlier, I can say something about nothing

[Voytek]

[quote name='LittleRena' timestamp='1290175440' post='2517363']
You know, if my comments are really bothing you, you could just say something and I'll stop responding, but if not, I can keep going. As I said earlier, I can say something about nothing
[/quote]
It's funny because you're trying to insult us with the exact thing you're doing!

[LittleRena]

I've no intention of insulting you, if you feel insulted, I am sorry.

[Thrash]

[quote name='Hadrian' timestamp='1290127370' post='2516941']
After all, you 'Shrooms seem to mock everyone that goes to your headquarters. Eye for an eye, no?
[/quote]

Actually, that's not entirely true. I've been treated fairly respectfully there.

[Ivan Moldavi]

[quote name='Arthur Blair' timestamp='1290047456' post='2516390']
This is a strawman.

Are you trying to claim that we did dictate what another alliance did? The same goes for Ivan a few posts back. Your attempt at spinning this into the Kingdom having done something DIRE beyond a Baron posting a minor announcement thread is futile. And possibly just a little bit silly.
[/quote]
I know I missed a couple of days and this is a little late but you guys are going on and on about whether or not the NPO can remove diplomats but you guys just cancelled all your treaties. Couldn't all those alliances !@#$%* and moan that you had no right to do so?

Of course not, [i]that[/i] would be silly.

[DictatatorDan]

[color="#FF0000"]44 Pages later...

This announcement was STILL a dumb idea.

Ardus is STILL incompetent.

MK is STILL posting in their own defense.

Everyone that frequents this thread daily is STILL waisting their time.[/color]

[Professor Chaos]

[quote name='DictatatorDan' timestamp='1290179657' post='2517396']
[color="#ff0000"]44 Pages later...

This announcement was STILL a dumb idea.

Ardus is STILL incompetent.

MK is STILL posting in their own defense.

Everyone that frequents this thread daily is STILL waisting their time.[/color]
[/quote]

There's not an alliance in this game that wouldn't be immediately improved by having Ardus in its government. I know you're trying to comically summarize the thread and put down everyone else in the process, but at least pick on one of our ACTUALLY incompetent members. The one you're targeting is among the most respected and recognized in the game.

[Professor Chaos]

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' timestamp='1290178907' post='2517391']
I know I missed a couple of days and this is a little late but you guys are going on and on about whether or not the NPO can remove diplomats but you guys just cancelled all your treaties. Couldn't all those alliances !@#$%* and moan that you had no right to do so?

Of course not, [i]that[/i] would be silly.
[/quote]

Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but didn't a number of people actually do that? I think this argument is comical.

"How dare you cancel on us in peacetime when there's no threat to our security!? Everyone knows that you're not supposed to cancel on your allies until war is imminent and we're about to get curbstomped by a much larger enemy force!"

[Ivan Moldavi]

[quote name='Professor Chaos' timestamp='1290181053' post='2517410']
Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but didn't a number of people actually do that? I think this argument is comical.

"How dare you cancel on us in peacetime when there's no threat to our security!? Everyone knows that you're not supposed to cancel on your allies until war is imminent and we're about to get curbstomped by a much larger enemy force!"
[/quote]
Indeed. And I believe the MK response was similar to what I have stated and what many here have stated from the NPO?

It was your prerogative, just as it was NPO's prerogative to expel diplomats that they did not wish to have on their boards.

Edited November 19, 2010 by Ivan Moldavi

[Crowdog07]

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' timestamp='1290181710' post='2517415']
Indeed. And I believe the MK response was similar to what I have stated and what many here have stated from the NPO?

It was your prerogative, just as it was NPO's prerogative to expel diplomats that they did not wish to have on their boards.
[/quote]

The difference being that NPO was doing this as a way to react to our diplomats and really brings no added value to themselves. Cancelling our treaties was an option from the beginning (thus cancellation clauses) and has been a significant value added decision to our alliance. Our cancellations were always a possibility and they weren't done because "lol, fu[b][/b]ck you. we're bitter." The two comparisons aren't even close, and I'm not so thick as to think you're really that ignorant.

Can we just get back to watching Fernando post? I'll make a whole new thread if we can see some more of him. [img]http://thecastlehall.com/boards/Smileys/kickass/gush.gif[/img]

[Hadrian]

[quote name='Thrash' timestamp='1290177517' post='2517376']
Actually, that's not entirely true. I've been treated fairly respectfully there.
[/quote]

Okay, not quite [i]everyone[/i]. But my point still stands.

[Roi Loup]

[quote name='Crowdog' timestamp='1290189667' post='2517506']
The difference being that NPO was doing this as a way to react to our diplomats and really brings no added value to themselves. Cancelling our treaties was an option from the beginning (thus cancellation clauses) and has been a significant value added decision to our alliance. Our cancellations were always a possibility and they weren't done because "lol, fu[b][/b]ck you. we're bitter." The two comparisons aren't even close, and I'm not so thick as to think you're really that ignorant.

Can we just get back to watching Fernando post? I'll make a whole new thread if we can see some more of him. [img]http://thecastlehall.com/boards/Smileys/kickass/gush.gif[/img]
[/quote]

npo never had the option to kick the diplomats?

[KainIIIC]

[quote name='Professor Chaos' timestamp='1290180515' post='2517404']
There's not an alliance in this game that wouldn't be immediately improved by having Ardus in its government. I know you're trying to comically summarize the thread and put down everyone else in the process, but at least pick on one of our ACTUALLY incompetent members. The one you're targeting is among the most respected and recognized in the game.
[/quote]

Well, behind the scenes Ardus may or may not be an asset, but as far as your trademarked yet recently less stellar Propaganda Machine is concerned, Ardus flops, looks bad and is a PR Fail. I mean, it's one thing to have Detlev or Voytek (and yeah, I completely understand STA, 'adds nothing' :-P), you kinda expect them to do that after awhile, but Ardus is supposed to be important. Ends up becoming a bit more like Olaf_Styfe.

[Rocky Horror]

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' timestamp='1290178907' post='2517391']
I know I missed a couple of days and this is a little late but you guys are going on and on about whether or not the NPO can remove diplomats but you guys just cancelled all your treaties. Couldn't all those alliances !@#$%* and moan that you had no right to do so?

Of course not, [i]that[/i] would be silly.
[/quote]Oh, dear. The similarity between those two situations is so very tenuous, you can scarcely use the same analytical tools on both - it's like performing keyhole surgery with a steering wheel.

For one, it is accepted that alliances can be civil to each other without having a treaty holding them together. MK, in withdrawing its treaties, was not singling out any alliance for a snubbing. It was a strategic change of placement -- lines of communication were kept open, betrayals avoided and things were just generally done above board and in accordance with existing standards. Whether or not you considered it politic was a matter of taste, but you certainly could not call it a belligerent move.

By contrast, this was an undiplomatic act aimed at the Mushroom Kingdom. It was pointed out in the OP that historically this has been used as justification for an attack and it could serve as the same now, [i]mutatis mutandis[/i]. It is worth noting that MK did not carry out this course of action, because times are different.

As to the justification for posting this announcement, I would argue that it is in the public interest to know that two historically antagonistic alliances are on bad terms once more. It serves the world well to know these things, as most alliances who are not directly involved are little more than followers anyway.

[quote name='DictatatorDan' timestamp='1290179657' post='2517396']
[color="#FF0000"]MK is STILL posting in their own defense.[/color]
[/quote]Next time we will post in defence of someone else?