Nazis in Space wrote:Connopolis wrote:Would you prefer I completely ignore his defending, because that would be silly. The UDL isn't taboo; just because there are other defender organizations doesn't mean that anyone is forbidden from mentioning the UDL.
Yours,
How curious. How does 'Not mentioning the UDL' equal 'Completely ignore his defending*? Even
if the UDL was the only defending organisation ever, I'm pretty confident one can mention defending achievements without resorting to using the hallowed halls of the WA as a cheap means to advertise it.
Other than the UDLs pressing need and insatiable desire to be mentioned in the WA - something no previous defending organisation has felt the need for, presumably because they were busy doing actual defending rather than using the WA to advertise their existence -, what reason is there to mention the specific organisation Glen-Rhodes is involved in?
I always understood that defenders are brothers, fighting for a common goal. But maybe the UDL disagrees with this interpretation...?
But regardless of all this, it's a paragraph that needs
sourcing. Thus far, the defending achievements provided for Glen-Rhodes amount to 'Being a member' (Like hundreds of others) and 'Pushing Paper' (Head of the blah blah blah). This is... Less than impressive, and simply not worthy of commendation. Unless the nation of Glen-Rhodes was involved in actual frontline activities - and significant ones at that -, including this paragraph equals spitting in the face of hundreds who've achieved more.
~ Mecha-Hitler McSrsface
With all due respect, you need to understand something ambassador, which you've been untinentionally omitting out of blatant spite - I have personally defended
once with the UDL. I've posted on their forums
once. Stating that I'm advertising the UDL is absolutely non-sensical, given the fact that not only do I lack the reasons to, but I lack the desire to. And before you go around saying that the UDL is so presumptuous, mentioning its own name in the resolution; I advise you read
this. This was a private drafting process, in which I made very few changes, given the lack of interest by the generalites of the SC - this proposal was completely devoid of UDL influence, and if it satisfies you, I won't make true statements abou the UDL; rather, I'll simply mention their existence - or is that still too ostentatious to present within the proposal?
Also, "spitting in the faces of hundreds who've achieved more"? Please, if you'd be so inclined as to give me another nation that's passed 7 resolutions, was a former defender, and wrote the WA-based script that determines statistics of WA votes? Stating that hundreds have achieved more is not only spurious, but laughable. Overall, every statement made in your post was slanderous, with all due respect your excellency. It seems as if you've veered off on a tangent of personal spite directed at Dr. Castro, and Glen-Rhodes, and for that, I'm displeased.
Yours in frustration,
Posted: Fri Sep 23, 2011 9:03 pm
