A Statement from Doomhouse

[Thrash]

[quote name='Beefspari' timestamp='1302133731' post='2685790']
So what was the longest announcement thread in history again? Gramlins around 260 or something?
[img]http://meru.xfury.net/images/aeris/aerishehL5.jpg[/img]
[/quote]

Please don't encourage them.

[Groucho Marx]

[quote name='Thrash' timestamp='1302133993' post='2685793']
Please don't encourage them.
[/quote]

She's already encouraged bad posters to be worse. The sewers are the limit at this point.

[the rebel]

[quote name='Hiro Nakara' timestamp='1302130993' post='2685764']
No I'm not moaning about it not being fair, wth are you not understanding. Maybe I'm coming across wrongly excuse my English. I'm moaning about your pm, you should have worded differently. I have no problem in curb stomps, I have made this clear from day 1 of my nations existence. WTH. I do not care about unfair fights, [b]I care for a better quality of trash talk in pm's This is what irritates me and this is why I blocked The Rebel and this is why I want you to be better.[/b] Don't pretend its going to be a good fight, I want you to trash talk god dammit. Not "lets make this a good one" If that is your best effort then I will block you as I did the rebel to annoy you.
[/quote]

Better trash talk i believe my opening pm to you was quite good and judging by the block probably butthurt you too. Since its got lost in time heres a jist of what it said after i did an intel on you: "Hello and welcome to my shores, my spies have gathered information and found that you have come unprepared for war due to lack of funds, but dont worry food aid will be delivered shortly to feed your starving soldiers."

Also heres a hint Hiro Nakara, when you stop bringing up my name all the time, will be when i stop replying to you, understand?

[The Crimson King]

[quote name='Beefspari' timestamp='1302133731' post='2685790']
So what was the longest announcement thread in history again? Gramlins around 260 or something?
[img]http://meru.xfury.net/images/aeris/aerishehL5.jpg[/img]
[/quote]


I was actually thinking earlier today if this thread had now surpassed the NPO peace mode thread from Karma in length (it is clear it has well surpassed it in mindless content)

Alas I did not really care enough to actually go look for that one

[shahenshah]

[quote name='Letum' timestamp='1302117768' post='2685615']
It's a good thing we're not MK. I hear those guys believe that unprovoked pre-emptive attacks should incur around 350,000 in tech from the aggressors. Imagine how long we'd all be here if we followed their example.
[/quote]

FYI, Total Tech Reps demanded from our 'preemptive' strike were closer to ~490,000 tech.

[mattski133]

[quote name='Indian Bob' timestamp='1302118870' post='2685627']
You do realize that you just completely contradicted yourself don't you?

You waited to see Legion do something. They did nothing. Therefore it was inevitable that NPO came in.

So, what you're saying is that the only observable, concrete evidence, that you could produce for NPO's eventual involvement explicitly showed that their only one step chain into the conflict was NOT getting involved? And THAT is the reason you pre-empted?

Doomhouse being adamant about something does not make Legion's inaction an indicator of NPO's liklihood of getting involved no matter how used to blindly following the party line you are.
[/quote]


[quote name='Indian Bob' timestamp='1302121223' post='2685658']
The only undeniable, categorical, proven fact is that the NPO, and indeed their treaty partners that were the only links to the NpO war were not involved. They did not mobilize their nations, they did not make even so much as a declaration of support let alone take an active role. THAT is proof whereas your arguements and accusations are built upon rumors, feelings and intuition. In other words, baseless.
[/quote]

And yet this NPO member says that if a legitimate point of entry had arisen, NPO would have entered (he didn't need to say it but I think he's been the first from NPO to discuss a stance at all in public)-

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=99990&st=3660&p=2684942&#entry2684942

Legion and TPF were bound by treaty to defend NpO and were not doing so. The three reasons for that; 1) cowardice 2) waiting for an opportune moment 3) at the request of a mutual ally. There's a fourth as well, which is they felt NpO was guilty. Yet those treaties stand so I ruled it out. I also ruled out 1 because TPF are not cowards, from my experience. That leaves 2 and 3 which I think are linked.

I find it unlikely both TPF and Legion would ignore their treaties, and even more unlikely that NPO would ignore their treaties to them, unless that's what your suggesting. Since those treaties all still stand, it seems I am correct in that.

If you want someone to blame, blame NPO for allying themselves directly to this side again. Life's not fair. Plenty of people get rolled for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. The consequences are usually defeat or the humiliation of abandoning your allies.

Both sides of the war know this now.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Borsche' timestamp='1302127964' post='2685726']
Here we go again. DH has offered terms. Ergo DH wants the war to end. NPO has refused said terms, thus wants the war to continue.
[/quote]

Obviously the terms are unacceptable and thus negotiations and compromising needs to occur. If DH is unwilling to do this, then it is DH that wants the war to continue.

[quote name='Hyperbad' timestamp='1302129161' post='2685744']
They are certainly the reason this war came to be but do not hold sole responsibility for the war continuing. Terms were offered by them which if accepted may have very well ended this war.


By that logic the counter offers by our coalition which were rejected by our opponents suggests they want this war to continue.

The truth of the matter is negotiations have been going on for some time now. Both sides have presented offers which were declined and followed up with counter offers. Those were declined and said party would then offer counter offers of their own. This has happened multiple times now. It can be said both sides want the war to end but not to such an extent they're willing to do absolutely anything to get out of it be it agree to s status quo ante bellum or the initially offered terms.

[b]Edit:[/b] Rephrase of second sentence replying to first quote to clarify.
[/quote]

Well unfortunately for DH, since they did start it, the onus falls on them to end it in a timely manner. Lest of course they wish to become that which they are fighting?

[Gibsonator21]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1302143687' post='2685897']
Obviously the terms are unacceptable and thus negotiations and compromising needs to occur. If DH is unwilling to do this, then it is DH that wants the war to continue.



Well unfortunately for DH, since they did start it, the onus falls on them to end it in a timely manner. Lest of course they wish to become that which they are fighting?
[/quote]

That's the thinking of the loser dictates negotiations. It doesn't work that way.

[the rebel]

[quote name='mattski133' timestamp='1302141410' post='2685874']
[b]Legion and TPF were bound by treaty to defend NpO and were not doing so. The three reasons for that; 1) cowardice 2) waiting for an opportune moment 3) at the request of a mutual ally. There's a fourth as well, which is they felt NpO was guilty.[/b] Yet those treaties stand so I ruled it out. I also ruled out 1 because TPF are not cowards, from my experience. That leaves 2 and 3 which I think are linked.

I find it unlikely both TPF and Legion would ignore their treaties, and even more unlikely that NPO would ignore their treaties to them, unless that's what your suggesting. Since those treaties all still stand, it seems I am correct in that.
[/quote]

I like how when trying to explain your reasons you always leave out what happend during the 6 million dollar war where NSO asked its allies not to get involved as they didnt want it escalating, you with me? Maybe just maybe thats why NpO didnt ask Legion to enter and STA didnt require TPF help.
By your logic treaties mean you dont listen to what you allies want and dive straight in without listening.

Regardless i dont even know why this arguement needs to come up all the time, as its been going around in cycles since day one.

[Williambonney]

[quote name='mattski133' timestamp='1302141410' post='2685874']
And yet this NPO member says that if a legitimate point of entry had arisen, NPO would have entered (he didn't need to say it but I think he's been the first from NPO to discuss a stance at all in public)-

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=99990&st=3660&p=2684942&#entry2684942

Legion and TPF were bound by treaty to defend NpO and were not doing so. The three reasons for that; 1) cowardice 2) waiting for an opportune moment 3) at the request of a mutual ally. There's a fourth as well, which is they felt NpO was guilty. Yet those treaties stand so I ruled it out. I also ruled out 1 because TPF are not cowards, from my experience. That leaves 2 and 3 which I think are linked.

I find it unlikely both TPF and Legion would ignore their treaties, and even more unlikely that NPO would ignore their treaties to them, unless that's what your suggesting. Since those treaties all still stand, it seems I am correct in that.

If you want someone to blame, blame NPO for allying themselves directly to this side again. Life's not fair. Plenty of people get rolled for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. The consequences are usually defeat or the humiliation of abandoning your allies.

Both sides of the war know this now.
[/quote]

Did it ever occur to that maybe there was a 5th, 6th or more possibilites? And since when can you base TPF and Legions military and fa actions from a non government allied member, who posted them much later than when these wars started?

Edited April 7, 2011 by William Bonney

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Gibsonator21' timestamp='1302144223' post='2685905']
That's the thinking of the loser dictates negotiations. It doesn't work that way.
[/quote]

Where did you get that from what I posted? I am simply stating that DH has stated that NPO kept FAN at war for over 2 years when there were terms on the table that could have ended the war much sooner. FAN refused those terms but it is still NPO's fault. Thus, by DH's own standards, it is DH keeping NPO at war since NPO refused their terms but DH still has yet to give NPO peace.

You need to read the whole thread and all the posts coming from DH, otherwise, you will not know what is going on.

[Joe Izuzu]

While being quoted is certainly a sop to my vanity, what I said (more than once) does not support DH's rationale for the preventative attack. My non-governmental opinion has always been that NPO would have stepped up to the plate and defended its allies, should those allies have come under attack. The fact is that those allies did not come under attack and so we didn't enter. Your side has been changing your reasons for attacking us since the night you declared and spinning those reasons since the same night.

As far as I am concerned there are two salient issues that cannot be credibly rebutted by your side, regardless of what spin you put on it.

1) You attacked us without reasonable cause.

2) You are maintaining the war without reasonable cause.

You will not convince me otherwise, nor will you convince anyone who maintains the least shred of intellectual honesty. But I am sure you will continue to try.

[mrwuss]

[quote name='Joe Izuzu' timestamp='1302145717' post='2685928']
While being quoted is certainly a sop to my vanity, what I said (more than once) does not support DH's rationale for the preventative attack. My non-governmental opinion has always been that NPO would have stepped up to the plate and defended its allies, should those allies have come under attack. The fact is that those allies did not come under attack and so we didn't enter. Your side has been changing your reasons for attacking us since the night you declared and spinning those reasons since the same night.

As far as I am concerned there are two salient issues that cannot be credibly rebutted by your side, regardless of what spin you put on it.

1) You attacked us without reasonable cause.

2) You are maintaining the war without reasonable cause.

You will not convince me otherwise, nor will you convince anyone who maintains the least shred of intellectual honesty. But I am sure you will continue to try.
[/quote]

We attacked you so we could steal RV from NSO. That was the plan the whole time and everything fell into place perfectly.

[Gibsonator21]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1302144947' post='2685915']
Where did you get that from what I posted? I am simply stating that DH has stated that NPO kept FAN at war for over 2 years when there were terms on the table that could have ended the war much sooner. FAN refused those terms but it is still NPO's fault. Thus, by DH's own standards, it is DH keeping NPO at war since NPO refused their terms but DH still has yet to give NPO peace.

You need to read the whole thread and all the posts coming from DH, otherwise, you will not know what is going on.
[/quote]

"Obviously the terms are unacceptable and thus negotiations and compromising needs to occur." <-- Right there.

[Williambonney]

[quote name='Gibsonator21' timestamp='1302147213' post='2685954']
"Obviously the terms are unacceptable and thus negotiations and compromising needs to occur." <-- Right there.
[/quote]
Well then what do you propose? The victors can demand anything they want as reps? This can lead to a seriously dark and disastrous road.

[Feuersturm]

[quote name='William Bonney' timestamp='1302147460' post='2685960']
Well then what do you propose? The victors can demand anything they want as reps? This can lead to a seriously dark and disastrous road.
[/quote]

They can demand what they want, but that does not mean we have to accept.

Edited April 7, 2011 by Feuersturm

[Gibsonator21]

[quote name='William Bonney' timestamp='1302147460' post='2685960']
Well then what do you propose? The victors can demand anything they want as reps? This can lead to a seriously dark and disastrous road.
[/quote]
Victors can [i]demand[/i] anything they want, yes. It doesn't mean they will (or should) get it. But losers shouldn't [i]demand[/i] anything. The loser of the war should work towards a compromise and not just !@#$%* and moan about how they should get white peace because they don't like the CB or something silly.

[NowaCorp]

[quote name='Feuersturm' timestamp='1302148122' post='2685966']
They have been proving it since KARMA. We are already traveling the dark road - many standards held by the majority of those on Planet Bob have been thrown out the window in this new world of terror.
[/quote]

Oh come now, why did you edit this out? Your glittering tears are beautiful. Don't be ashamed.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Gibsonator21' timestamp='1302147213' post='2685954']
"Obviously the terms are unacceptable and thus negotiations and compromising needs to occur." <-- Right there.
[/quote]

Ahhhh... So you disagree with DH at least in part since part of their reasoning for attacking was that NPO held FAN at war for 2 years due to FAN finding the terms NPO presented as unacceptable and NPO would not negotiate or compromise? Because according to you, that is perfectly reasonable to do. Not to mention all the other things NPO did since they were the victors. That also means you found none of NPO's terms as unreasonable ever? I find that hard to believe.

[Williambonney]

[quote name='Gibsonator21' timestamp='1302148425' post='2685970']
Victors can [i]demand[/i] anything they want, yes. It doesn't mean they will (or should) get it. But losers shouldn't [i]demand[/i] anything. The loser of the war should work towards a compromise and not just !@#$%* and moan about how they should get white peace because they don't like the CB or something silly.
[/quote]
That is exactly what our government has been trying to do, but only to be met back with more nonsense and ridiculous demands.

[Gibsonator21]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1302148609' post='2685972']
Ahhhh... So you disagree with DH at least in part since part of their reasoning for attacking was that NPO held FAN at war for 2 years due to FAN finding the terms NPO presented as unacceptable and NPO would not negotiate or compromise? Because according to you, that is perfectly reasonable to do. Not to mention all the other things NPO did since they were the victors. That also means you found none of NPO's terms as unreasonable ever? I find that hard to believe.
[/quote]
I wasn't around for the big bad NPO. I also don't actually care why DH attacked. You would have to fill me in on what terms were offered to FAN, too.

And I don't think there shouldn't be compromise, it's quite the opposite.

[quote name='William Bonney' timestamp='1302148636' post='2685973']
That is exactly what our government has been trying to do, but only to be met back with more nonsense and ridiculous demands.
[/quote]

From what I've seen of negotiations, I wouldn't accept it either if I were DH. It'll get there though.

Edited April 7, 2011 by Gibsonator21

[Williambonney]

[quote name='Gibsonator21' timestamp='1302148841' post='2685976']
I wasn't around for the big bad NPO. I also don't actually care why DH attacked. You would have to fill me in on what terms were offered to FAN, too.

And I don't think there shouldn't be compromise, it's quite the opposite.



From what I've seen of negotiations, I wouldn't accept it either if I were DH. It'll get there though.
[/quote]
Were you in the talks with dh? I seriously doubt it. I wasn't either, but I've gotten the jist of it and I don't see any rational reason for them to turn them down.

[Gibsonator21]

[quote name='William Bonney' timestamp='1302149156' post='2685978']
Were you in the talks with dh? I seriously doubt it. I wasn't either, but I've gotten the jist of it and I don't see any rational reason for them to turn them down.
[/quote]
Eh, I'm sure the ones I saw weren't the latest (at the time they were, obviously). I'll have to go find out.

[Lusitan]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1302117277' post='2685608']
It's not so much about the AA of the person posting, it's about the general attitude of those LittleRena supports. What about NPO so disturbs you so much that you can't grant peace today? They aren't the threat they were a couple of years ago, certainly as of now they are outclassed by the coalition arrayed against them and their allies and that coalition could actually be larger if the right IRC channels are visited.

No, there is no point on carrying on the war unless you fear them...or you just like to bully the slow, fat kid.

Either way, it a poor reflection on you, not them.
[/quote]

If I had anything to do with the process of peace talks I wouldn't let them go now regardless of the level of threat they posed. They summarily rejected our peace proposals, letting them go now on their terms is not an option.

[quote name='Letum' timestamp='1302117512' post='2685610']
Yeah, that's what we've been doing for the past week.
[/quote]

Good.

[quote name='William Bonney' timestamp='1302117552' post='2685611']
So the past 190 pages were just a dream? I'd love to sit down and discuss the conditions of peace but I'm not in government, I will leave that to our great staff. And I don't think white peace should be something dh recieves for this.
[/quote]

Someone's going to get disappointed.

[Williambonney]

[quote name='Lusitan' timestamp='1302150637' post='2685997']

Someone's going to get disappointed.
[/quote]

I doubt I'll lose any sleep over it, but hey maybe I'll come back in a few years and change my mind? Never know.