Announcement from Umbrella and the Mushroom Kingdom

[Quinoa Rex]

[quote name='shahenshah' timestamp='1296856133' post='2619531']
Its just an observation from one person. The official stance isn't really a secret or anything.
[/quote]
No, I'm aware, don't worry. I was commenting on the fact that the observation, while valid, didn't really make any practical sense.

[Quinoa Rex]

[quote name='D34th' timestamp='1296876648' post='2619793']
MK are made of a bunch of sensitive people who cannot handle critics
[/quote]
This is where you prove to everyone that you don't know the first thing about MK, nor about the basics of civil debate. Someone arguing with you because they believe you're wrong doesn't equate to crying, nor does someone from MK posting in a thread equate to crying. By your own logic, all you do is cry about MK. Who's the hypocrite, again?

[bobo t baggins]

[quote name='KainIIIC' timestamp='1296872598' post='2619742']
Typically, a lot of people will point out that "MK are hypocrites" when MK more or less acts like blatant hypocrites.
[/quote]


would it be possible for you to prove this is not essentially ad-hominem nonsense?


[quote name='KainIIIC' timestamp='1296872598' post='2619742']
That's just reaping what you've sewn.
[/quote]


like pockets?
i really hate reaping mended pockets.

[D34th]

[quote name='Quinoa Rex' timestamp='1296881768' post='2619890']
This is where you prove to everyone that you don't know the first thing about MK, nor about the basics of civil debate. Someone arguing with you because they believe you're wrong doesn't equate to crying, nor does someone from MK posting in a thread equate to crying. By your own logic, all you do is cry about MK. Who's the hypocrite, again?
[/quote]

All you said is true, however, that doesn't represent MK's posts. All that the majority of members of MK knows is post memes, attacks and complain about something that they usually do but don't like when people do the same thing with them. There are ways and ways to argue about something, and MK arguments are based in hypocrisy and whining. I'd advice you to take a look at posts made by MK member and only then come back here to preach about civil debate ok?

[quote]
[b]whine[/b] (hwn, wn)
v. whined, whin·ing, whines
v.intr.

To complain or protest in a childish fashion.[/quote]

[quote]
[b]hypocrite[/b]

Someone who complains about something but finds themselves doing exactly the same thing.[/quote]

[Voytek]

[quote name='D34th' timestamp='1296883141' post='2619912']
All you said is true, however, that doesn't represent MK's posts. All that the majority of members of MK knows is post memes, attacks and complain about something that they usually do but don't like when people do the same thing with them. There are ways and ways to argue about something, and MK arguments are based in hypocrisy and whining. I'd advice you to take a look at posts made by MK member and only then come back here to preach about civil debate ok?
[/quote]
Don't stop I've nearly got bingo

[D34th]

[quote name='bobo t baggins' timestamp='1296882660' post='2619903']
would it be possible for you to prove this is not essentially ad-hominem nonsense?
[/quote]

Take a look in the posts of MK's members and in the posts of MK's allies in these threads: [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=54890"]A Missive from Karma[/url], [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=80942"]Concerning the War of Aggression against C&G[/url] and [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=79441"]TOP Declaration of War on C&G[/url]

Then think about MK behavior lately and look this thread: [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=97693"]Everything. Must. Die.[/url]

I'm pretty sure that wont be that hard to see the blatant hypocrisy coming from MK members and allies.

[Azaghul]

[quote name='Baldr' timestamp='1296863088' post='2619623']
You guys are going to be jerks regardless.

If an alliance defends it's treaty partners, you !@#$%* and cry. If they don't, you !@#$%* and cry. It doesn't matter, you're going to !@#$%* and cry either way.[/quote]
No one is "crying" about this.

[quote]And you initiated the attacks against TPF, Molon Labe's treaty partner. Molon Labe then responded as per their treaty.

You didn't bother with a DoW on TPF, why should Molon Labe be required to give you one?[/quote]
For the last time, even though this has already been stated numerous times:

[size="7"]We don't care that they didn't post a Declaration of War. We simply don't respect or accept their reasoning that they were only attacking "rogues" (even [i]after[/i] we made it clear that they were officially sanctioned and not rogues), and not initiating a general alliance war against us. So we are making it clear that we consider our alliances to be at war.[/size]

[quote name='D34th' timestamp='1296876648' post='2619793']
and you people [MK] think that everyone is like you, but you're wrong.[/quote]
Quite the opposite, actually.

Edited February 5, 2011 by Azaghul

[Voytek]

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1296883609' post='2619925']For the last time, even though this has already been stated numerous times:

[size="7"]We don't care that they didn't post a Declaration of War. We simply don't respect or accept their reasoning that they were only attacking "rogues" (even [i]after[/i] we made it clear that they were officially sanctioned and not rogues), and not initiating a general alliance war against us.[/size][/quote]
why yelling so loud mker? do you still need burping? a nappy change maybe?

[bobo t baggins]

[quote name='D34th' timestamp='1296883141' post='2619912']
All you said is true, however, that doesn't represent MK's posts. All that the majority of members of MK knows is post memes, attacks and complain about something that they usually do but don't like when people do the same thing with them. There are ways and ways to argue about something, and MK arguments are based in hypocrisy and whining. I'd advice you to take a look at posts made by MK member and only then come back here to preach about civil debate ok?
[/quote]

that was absolutely a great story.
and your listing of definitions like that was super as well
[quote name=dictionary]
noun n. ( Abbr. n. ) The part of speech that is used to name a person, place, thing, quality, or action and can function as the subject or object of.[/quote]

[quote name=dictionary]
verb n. ( Abbr. V or vb. ) The part of speech that expresses existence, action, or occurrence in most languages.
[/quote]

[Grealind]

have fun ya'll..

[Banksy]

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1296883609' post='2619925']
[size="7"]We don't care that they didn't post a Declaration of War. We simply don't respect or accept their reasoning that they were only attacking "rogues" (even [i]after[/i] we made it clear that they were officially sanctioned and not rogues), and not initiating a general alliance war against us. So we are making it clear that we consider our alliances to be at war.[/size]
[/quote]
lmao, y u whine? mk r such hypocrites....

[D34th]

Because saying "I don't care" make this real.

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Kowalski' timestamp='1296817370' post='2619141']
They do; Legion are already mentioned in my last post but add the other three to the list and it still applies.
[/quote]
When did you start speaking on behalf of the Mushroom Kingdom?

[quote name='Feanor Noldorin' timestamp='1296833708' post='2619285']
MK/Umb/GOONS/FAN attacked with a CB. People need to stop reciting the dumb line that they didn't. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean its not there.
[/quote]
They used the same one that you guys used on NpO back in 2008. "They might one day pose a threat and right now they're isolated so get them!"

[Alterego]

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1296883609' post='2619925']
[size="7"]We don't care that they didn't post a Declaration of War. We simply don't respect or accept their reasoning that they were only attacking "rogues" (even [i]after[/i] we made it clear that they were officially sanctioned and not rogues), and not initiating a general alliance war against us. So we are making it clear that we consider our alliances to be at war.[/size]
[/quote]
Thats the problem with wars that are fought based on someone’s reasoning you cant disprove an idea in someone’s head anymore than they can disprove the idea in your head NPO would rise against you some day in the future. If you want clear cut and clearly defined reasons for war backed up with evidence dont start wars that have none of that. The opening DoWs set the tone for a war and yours was based on someone’s reasoning over any evidence whatsoever. Reasoning unlike evidence is flexible.

Edited February 5, 2011 by Alterego

[Shayne Rivai]

[quote name='neneko' timestamp='1296847461' post='2619437']
He was actually talking about duckrolls support of this attack by ML. Unless I missed when TPF joined DR your response doesn't make a lot of sense.
[/quote]

Thank you for recognizing that. If that wasn't obvious, perhaps I should have made it clearer. Regardless, thanks for setting the record straight.

[quote name='mhawk' timestamp='1296847818' post='2619443']
He was talking about TFG not being able to know what goes on in DR because "he isn't a member of dr". One would only need to talk to ml a short while to know it is likely TFG knows the workings of ML and their relations extremely well.
[/quote]

No. I'm aware that ML and TFG are good friends. Read neneko's explanation. It's correct.


[quote name='ThatFALGuy' timestamp='1296851580' post='2619482']
You apparently are unaware. [i][b]I[/b][/i] am in fact the person that STATED in more than one way, ML has no desire to see DR take part in this, that DR is not warranted in any of this and that DR will not be called into any of this. ML is defending it's personal allies. This defending of personal allies has nothing to do with DR in any way, shape or form. IF DR comes in with force, it will be by other doings and not related to ML. Personally I just don't care for how it was originally put that ML "was told" they would not be backed, as if defending allies was a bad thing/choice or that defending its allies was based on if DR was ok with it, let alone, IIRC, by a non DR member. Did you question HIS information?[/quote]

Apparently, I was. Regardless of who did most of the talking, the point that Crymson was making and I was defending was that ML and DR had discussed this prior and any absence of us rolling in with ML (if we don't) was discussed previously. So that was a miscommunication on my part. Apologies.

And, no, I didn't question his information because from what I have gathered, I heard the same thing, but I think how it was put was misconstrued. From what I've gathered: No, ML wasn't "told" or "ordered" not to go in because you wouldn't get any help. If ML wanted to defend her allies, that is her prerogative and DR supports the honoring of treaties, however, wouldn't be joining you in the battle.

ML: Hey, we want to take care of some rogues/Hey, we want to defend TPF./Hey, we want to attack Umbrella & MK (Just to cover some of the major varied opinions.)
DR: That is fine, however, DR won't be willing to join you.
ML: Fair enough, we didn't want to bring you in anyway.
DR: Happy Hunting.

I didn't witness the conversation, so without nitpicking over specifics, that is the tone of the conversation that I gathered. It wasn't DR trying to control ML or anything, just a matter of fact, "You are a member of Duckroll but you are still in individual" type thing that meant ML was to fight their own fight. Bottom Line: I think we are just arguing over the tone of how ML/DR came to the conclusion that this was a solo fight, not the concept that that conversation happened. I thought that what you stated above was what Crymson was saying in his stripped down post. You took it differently (understandably). Glad to have this more cleared up.

[quote]No such thing as a food drive around here, get a gun and shoot something tasty. Being self reliant negates food drives.[/quote]

Bullet Drive?

[quote]Venison bologna is very good, might do you some good to just eat a little of it for once, you're looking a little anemic.[/quote]

You know what else I had that was tasty? "Moose Jerky" -- beef jerky from a moose. It was awesome.


[quote]To all you haters out there just frothing at the mouth, baiting and taunting like little school children for DR to come rolling to town, jesus $%&@, would you quit already? It's very tiresome. You act like little school children playing some silly assed browser based game about politics and nations or something, grow up already.[/quote]

This.


[quote]To all you lovers out there, I guess late is better than never and in the fashion of last years January/February war love fest, I announced that ML had turned 3, in the previous October. Well, it's that time of year again, ML turned 4, this previous October. Onwards to 5 [/quote]

And this, too.

o/ ML

[Delta1212]

[quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1296890252' post='2620215']
Thats the problem with wars that are fought based on someone’s reasoning you cant disprove an idea in someone’s head anymore than they can disprove the idea in your head NPO would rise against you some day in the future. If you want clear cut and clearly defined reasons for war backed up with evidence dont start wars that have none of that. The opening DoWs set the tone for a war and yours was based on someone’s reasoning over any evidence whatsoever. Reasoning [b]unlike evidence[/b] is flexible.
[/quote]
Announcements backed by evidence don't usually devolve into bickering about the meaning, accuracy and relevancy of the missive in question like we have here after all.

[Shayne Rivai]

[quote name='MCRABT' timestamp='1296853397' post='2619499']
It seems you are also unaware who TFG is, take it easy fella
[/quote]

There was in fact a miscommunication. Or more accurately, words being misconstrued (so uncommon on Planet Bob, right?). So, it's been worked out regardless at least on this side of things.

Thank you though. <-- Not sarcasm, by the way.

Edited February 5, 2011 by Shayne Rivai

[Azaghul]

[quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1296890252' post='2620215']
Thats the problem with wars that are fought based on someone’s reasoning you cant disprove an idea in someone’s head anymore than they can disprove the idea in your head NPO would rise against you some day in the future. If you want clear cut and clearly defined reasons for war backed up with evidence dont start wars that have none of that. The opening DoWs set the tone for a war and yours was based on someone’s reasoning over any evidence whatsoever. Reasoning unlike evidence is flexible.
[/quote]
Anyone can make up garbage arguments and call it "reasoning" but GOOD reasoning isn't so flexible.

[Alterego]

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1296891469' post='2620252']
Anyone can make up garbage arguments and call it "reasoning" but GOOD reasoning isn't so flexible.
[/quote]
Yeah on a long enough time line you would have fought them. On a long enough time line you will be fighting your own allies including TOP. Thats not "good reasoning" its paranoid speculation based of a historical truth that once you were enemies.

[Crymson]

[quote name='Shayne Rivai' timestamp='1296890905' post='2620238']
I thought that what you stated above was what Crymson was saying in his stripped down post. You took it differently (understandably). Glad to have this more cleared up.
[/quote]

My information was second-hand. I probably shouldn't have said anything, whatever the case.

[Heft]

Okay, so ML defended their ally from MK/Umbrella attacks, and apparently that's a surprise or something?

While you may not have formally declared war or had a large number of attacks, you were coordinating a number of sanctioned attacks on TPF. Not sure what's so strange or odd about this on either side, other than the feigned surprise in the OP.

What [i]would[/i] be strange is if Duckroll decided to just ignore this, and I say that as someone who signed the Duckroll Project.

[Gobb]

[quote name='Heft' timestamp='1296896194' post='2620306']
Okay, so ML defended their ally from MK/Umbrella attacks, and apparently that's a surprise or something?

While you may not have formally declared war or had a large number of attacks, you were coordinating a number of sanctioned attacks on TPF. Not sure what's so strange or odd about this on either side, other than the feigned surprise in the OP.

What [i]would[/i] be strange is if Duckroll decided to just ignore this, and I say that as someone who signed the Duckroll Project.
[/quote]
As it's been said a few dozen times: this thread happened because ML claimed our members attacking TPF were rogues and chose to hang onto that instead of giving us a straight answer that they're at war with us.

[General Scipio]

[quote name='Heft' timestamp='1296896194' post='2620306']
Okay, so ML defended their ally from MK/Umbrella attacks, and apparently that's a surprise or something?

While you may not have formally declared war or had a large number of attacks, you were coordinating a number of sanctioned attacks on TPF. Not sure what's so strange or odd about this on either side, other than the feigned surprise in the OP.

What [i]would[/i] be strange is if Duckroll decided to just ignore this, and I say that as someone who signed the Duckroll Project.
[/quote]
Dude, at least read the first page before posting.

[Heft]

[quote name='Lord Gobb' timestamp='1296901413' post='2620360']
As it's been said a few dozen times: this thread happened because ML claimed our members attacking TPF were rogues and chose to hang onto that instead of giving us a straight answer that they're at war with us.
[/quote]
[quote name='General Scipio' timestamp='1296902022' post='2620366']
Dude, at least read the first page before posting.
[/quote]
The OP seemed to imply that MK/Umbrella hadn't initiated a state of war with their attacks, but that ML had with their attacks. As long as we're clear that MK/Umbrella initiated that war, failed to declare war, and then "recognized hostilities" because ML wouldn't formally declare war on them (in other words the same thing done to TPF) then I'm not sure how talking about rogues really matters.

[Banksy]

[quote name='Heft' timestamp='1296904135' post='2620381']
then I'm not sure how talking about rogues really matters.
[/quote]
Well, yes. That's the point of this thread. If you had read it, you would know this.