Advertisement
by The Autumn Clans » Tue Oct 27, 2009 10:56 am
by Flibbleites » Tue Oct 27, 2009 10:59 am
And some of these problems were pointed out to you before it came up for vote when you could have had it removed.The Autumn Clans wrote:Your all complaining now! Why not back before I sent it off. I waited 2 days to see if any one had any more issues!!! And the computer can't check spelling mistakes if they are infact another word. All of you could have checked it!!!
The Autumn Clans wrote:Get off your high horses and stop calling me premature and generaly criticising me. I don't take kindly to insults.
by Baranthar » Tue Oct 27, 2009 11:01 am
Stop whining.The Autumn Clans wrote:Your all complaining now! Why not back before I sent it off. I waited 2 days to see if any one had any more issues!!! And the computer can't check spelling mistakes if they are infact another word. All of you could have checked it!!!
Get off your high horses and stop calling me premature and generaly criticising me. I don't take kindly to insults.
I'm sick of seeing the same arguments, so could someone write a list of all the known issues. And IF it doesn't get through or it's repealed then I'll go through it and see what I can do.
by Hustinnia » Tue Oct 27, 2009 11:20 am
The Autumn Clans wrote:Your all complaining now! Why not back before I sent it off. I waited 2 days to see if any one had any more issues!!! And the computer can't check spelling mistakes if they are infact another word. All of you could have checked it!!!
Get off your high horses and stop calling me premature and generaly criticising me. I don't take kindly to insults.
I'm sick of seeing the same arguments, so could someone write a list of all the known issues. And IF it doesn't get through or it's repealed then I'll go through it and see what I can do.
Also some of you have issues with houses being owned. For the billionth time THIS LAW CAN'T COVER THEM. YES THEY ARE HISTORICAL. YES THEY SHOULD BE PROTECTED. BUT BECAUSE OF LOOPHOLES AND OTHER ISSUES THEY CAN'T BE PUT IN THE SAME ACT! WRITE ANOTHER PROPOSAL FOR THEM! JUST BECAUSE NOT ALL MONUMENTS ARE PROTECTED IS NOT A REASON TO DISSMISS A PROPOASL TO PROTECT SOME OF THEM.
I DON'T WANT TO HEAR THAT ARGUMENT AGAIN. SIRRIOUSLY I'M SICK OF YOU #@%*
by Acentinia » Tue Oct 27, 2009 11:24 am
by Philimbesi » Tue Oct 27, 2009 11:24 am
by Krioval » Tue Oct 27, 2009 11:28 am
The Autumn Clans wrote:Also some of you have issues with houses being owned. For the billionth time THIS LAW CAN'T COVER THEM. YES THEY ARE HISTORICAL. YES THEY SHOULD BE PROTECTED. BUT BECAUSE OF LOOPHOLES AND OTHER ISSUES THEY CAN'T BE PUT IN THE SAME ACT! WRITE ANOTHER PROPOSAL FOR THEM! JUST BECAUSE NOT ALL MONUMENTS ARE PROTECTED IS NOT A REASON TO DISSMISS A PROPOASL TO PROTECT SOME OF THEM.
by Noordeinde » Tue Oct 27, 2009 12:00 pm
The Autumn Clans wrote:I'm sick of seeing the same arguments, so could someone write a list of all the known issues. And IF it doesn't get through or it's repealed then I'll go through it and see what I can do.
Also some of you have issues with houses being owned. For the billionth time THIS LAW CAN'T COVER THEM. YES THEY ARE HISTORICAL. YES THEY SHOULD BE PROTECTED. BUT BECAUSE OF LOOPHOLES AND OTHER ISSUES THEY CAN'T BE PUT IN THE SAME ACT! WRITE ANOTHER PROPOSAL FOR THEM! JUST BECAUSE NOT ALL MONUMENTS ARE PROTECTED IS NOT A REASON TO DISSMISS A PROPOASL TO PROTECT SOME OF THEM.
I DON'T WANT TO HEAR THAT ARGUMENT AGAIN. SIRRIOUSLY I'M SICK OF YOU #@%*
by The Altani Federation » Tue Oct 27, 2009 12:03 pm
The Autumn Clans wrote:Your all complaining now! Why not back before I sent it off. I waited 2 days to see if any one had any more issues!!! And the computer can't check spelling mistakes if they are infact another word. All of you could have checked it!!!
The Autumn Clans wrote:Get off your high horses and stop calling me premature and generaly criticising me. I don't take kindly to insults.
The Autumn Clans wrote:I'm sick of seeing the same arguments, so could someone write a list of all the known issues. And IF it doesn't get through or it's repealed then I'll go through it and see what I can do.
The Autumn Clans wrote:Also some of you have issues with houses being owned. For the billionth time THIS LAW CAN'T COVER THEM. YES THEY ARE HISTORICAL. YES THEY SHOULD BE PROTECTED. BUT BECAUSE OF LOOPHOLES AND OTHER ISSUES THEY CAN'T BE PUT IN THE SAME ACT! WRITE ANOTHER PROPOSAL FOR THEM! JUST BECAUSE NOT ALL MONUMENTS ARE PROTECTED IS NOT A REASON TO DISSMISS A PROPOASL TO PROTECT SOME OF THEM.
The Autumn Clans wrote:I DON'T WANT TO HEAR THAT ARGUMENT AGAIN. SIRRIOUSLY I'M SICK OF YOU #@%*
by Grays Harbor » Tue Oct 27, 2009 12:05 pm
The Autumn Clans wrote:Your all complaining now! Why not back before I sent it off. I waited 2 days to see if any one had any more issues!!! And the computer can't check spelling mistakes if they are infact another word. All of you could have checked it!!!
Get off your high horses and stop calling me premature and generaly criticising me. I don't take kindly to insults.
I'm sick of seeing the same arguments, so could someone write a list of all the known issues. And IF it doesn't get through or it's repealed then I'll go through it and see what I can do.
Also some of you have issues with houses being owned. For the billionth time THIS LAW CAN'T COVER THEM. YES THEY ARE HISTORICAL. YES THEY SHOULD BE PROTECTED. BUT BECAUSE OF LOOPHOLES AND OTHER ISSUES THEY CAN'T BE PUT IN THE SAME ACT! WRITE ANOTHER PROPOSAL FOR THEM! JUST BECAUSE NOT ALL MONUMENTS ARE PROTECTED IS NOT A REASON TO DISSMISS A PROPOASL TO PROTECT SOME OF THEM.
I DON'T WANT TO HEAR THAT ARGUMENT AGAIN. SIRRIOUSLY I'M SICK OF YOU #@%*
by Philimbesi » Tue Oct 27, 2009 12:08 pm
I am certain I am not alone in saying that should this pass, I will be writing one of, I am sure, many repeals for this.
by Grays Harbor » Tue Oct 27, 2009 12:10 pm
Philimbesi wrote:I am certain I am not alone in saying that should this pass, I will be writing one of, I am sure, many repeals for this.
If you like ambassador I can send you the text of the repeal I have and we can compare notes. I would rather do it TG as I'm not ready for, nor do I feel it appropriate to publicly discuss the repeal text prior to the passage of the resolution.
by The Altani Federation » Tue Oct 27, 2009 12:11 pm
La Habana wrote:I mean I know that you have dyslexia as you mentioned, but you could have easily got one of the forum members to check the final draft before you submitted it, it's not THAT difficult. Since WA Resolutions have to be obeyed TO THE LETTER by WA members, the whole thing should be repealed, lest we have a world of monuments that are constantly getting 'assed'.
by The Halseyist Faction » Tue Oct 27, 2009 12:46 pm
by Swartaz » Tue Oct 27, 2009 1:49 pm
19:54 Myt: I honestly don't see what is wrong with beastiality
by Baranthar » Tue Oct 27, 2009 1:52 pm
Where do I sign?Noordeinde wrote:"Noordeinde condemns the language used by the Honorable Ambassador of The Autumn Clans. An Ambassador can be criticised for his/her work and shouldn't react this childish, pathetic but most of all rude against his/her fellow Ambassadors. Therefore we are willing to propose the following Condemnation Proposal to the Security Council:"
(...)
by Noordeinde » Tue Oct 27, 2009 1:59 pm
Baranthar wrote:Where do I sign?Noordeinde wrote:"Noordeinde condemns the language used by the Honorable Ambassador of The Autumn Clans. An Ambassador can be criticised for his/her work and shouldn't react this childish, pathetic but most of all rude against his/her fellow Ambassadors. Therefore we are willing to propose the following Condemnation Proposal to the Security Council:"
(...)
by Grays Harbor » Tue Oct 27, 2009 2:21 pm
by Gop-Conservatives » Tue Oct 27, 2009 2:33 pm
Noordeinde wrote:Baranthar wrote:Where do I sign?Noordeinde wrote:"Noordeinde condemns the language used by the Honorable Ambassador of The Autumn Clans. An Ambassador can be criticised for his/her work and shouldn't react this childish, pathetic but most of all rude against his/her fellow Ambassadors. Therefore we are willing to propose the following Condemnation Proposal to the Security Council:"
(...)
" As Ambassador in charge of the Noordeindian Permanent Diplomatic Mission to the WA I can officially report to you that the Condemnation Proposal has been added for delegate vote."
by Flibbleites » Tue Oct 27, 2009 2:37 pm
by ChubaKiller » Tue Oct 27, 2009 4:51 pm
by The Halseyist Faction » Tue Oct 27, 2009 5:48 pm
by Gop-Conservatives » Tue Oct 27, 2009 6:08 pm
The Halseyist Faction wrote:Perhaps however, a similar proposal to protect monuments designated as 'World' Monuments, which have some greater international impact might not go amiss.
by Vetok » Tue Oct 27, 2009 6:17 pm
Grays Harbor wrote:Vetok wrote:The Holy Empire of Vetok believes this resolution could be of much use in the preservation of world culture and history, and therefore vote yes. Our reasoning being, for example, the seventh suburb of Central Municipality is the birthplace of his most Original Holiness Imperator Vetok I. The particular house where the Great One lived is now a memorial and stands empty as a sign of respect for his memory. Any nation that would allow a site of comparable importance to them to be despoiled by commoners has already ransacked it.
We do not dispute that the preservation of historical places is important. What we object to is the "one size fits all" implementation this proposal puts forth. We would urge the Ambassador from Vetok to recosider his vote.
by Jefe051 » Tue Oct 27, 2009 6:53 pm
ChubaKiller wrote:I disagree with this proposal. Why should the world assembly interfere with individual nation state's monuments? These monuments are the sole property and responsibility of the host Nation State. The culture and history of the monuments is only related to the people to whom the monument belongs; I believe the World Assembly should not interfere with the sovereign rights of Nation States in regards to requiring the Nation State to either repair and care for their monuments, or require World Assembly personnel into the host nation to effect repairs as this infringes on the Nation State's sovereignty.
Further, funds for such a project would either be fully born by the host Nation State, or by the World Assembly - which is to say, also by the Nation State's as a collective. If the financial requirements are made by the World Assembly, is it truly equitable to use funds given by one Nation State in the repair of another Nation State's monument? Well, The Armed Republic of ChubaKiller says no. Therefore, I will cast my ballot accordingly.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement