NationStates Jolt Archive

It has come to my attention that the U.N. is no longer an effective form of government. It seems that the U.N. is more interested in corrupting the world then actually helping it...... I beleive that the recent passing of the abortion resolution outlines my point clearly.......

I have to agree with you. I was ready to leave the Union when that proposal passed and I am afraid if this next proposal to outlaw Nuclear Arms passes I will be forced to leave due to security and economic reasons.

The name of this topic says it all.

In essence in the UN we have created a governing body to govern the governing bodies that govern the people.
So who is going to govern the UN?

We truly are moving in the wrong direction. Things need to go the other way to an inter-personal level of governing so that issues on an international scale still get viewed upon from that personal level. Also it goes without saying that if we could govern ourselves first and foremost we would not need a UN or a government so I don't see why another level of governance is needed at all? All it creates ins another level of perspective further away from where problems really take place, at which events can be misjudged.
I feel that the United Nations should be nothing more than an intermediary body in place to help with communication and translation of each others cultures. Not to tell those cultures how to handle their affairs.

The Un is very corrupt.

Same reason why I am opposed to democracy (if you want to debate the pros and cons of democracy with me, not in this thread, message me or make a new thread or something), most people aren't very intelligent and then just vote without thinking or understanding the ramifications of their choice.

I've noticed something, I know I haven't been on here very long, but even for the time I have, I've noticed that the vast majority of the people who actually come on here and post intelligent thought out posts support the side of the resolution that's LOSING. Admittedly there are a few who support the winning side that have intelligent and well thought out posts and good points for their argument, but it still shows that most of the people who are voting probably don't really think about it or anything. Since this is a game I doubt that's likely to change at all, but it's just something to think about if you apply it to real life politics.

I would like to second Camexico motion

it is time for a new order....... how can a immoral governing body be keep the world in good shape.......i am calling for a revolution, weather it is done politiacally or with military force.........

A revolution, you say? I am in support of any revolution that doesn't involve me losing power.

I find it hard to take people seriously when they denounce the UN in one breath for allowing a woman the right to choose what to do with her body, and in the next breath the blast the UN for attempting to end the manufacture of nuclear weapons.

Idiots...

That's because is abortion is murder, as anyone not blinded by their hopeless drive to "political correctness" would tell you. And banning nukes is suicide, there's nothing to keep non-UN nations from using them. Careful throwing that word idiots around, especially when it applies to yourself.

That's because is abortion is murder

As is the use of nuclear weapons. You are entitled to your opinion just as everyone else is entitled to theirs. Admittedly you were responding to an insult, but I find it disturbing that a country values its military hardware above its women's right to their body.

I swear, every time, its like these threads are light bulbs to moths ...

Ahem, and, in the start, there was an initial post,

It has come to my attention that the U.N. is no longer an effective form of government. It seems that the U.N. is more interested in corrupting the world then actually helping it...... I beleive that the recent passing of the abortion resolution outlines my point clearly.......

The U.N. is not a government, the closest thing I could possibly compare it to is a club, where you may join or leave at any time, but to be a member, must abide by the rules for the opportunity to par-take of club activities.

Might I add, the idea of the "corruption" of a body noted to span over 37000 members, is childish. As is your blame of the abortion resolution passing as a reason for your discontent.

Membership is a double edged sword, I have said so before and will say so again, while you pays your money so to speak, and takes you choice, in the process of the voting, that is, 37000 other people do the same, and a simple majority vote decided the result as a yes or know out-come.

If you can't be bothered to under-stand that before joining or live with it after joining, then don't bother, as you have not done so to learn thefacts of the matter, or leave, once again, because clearly you know little or nothing of the realitis of rules or game mechanics.

Back to the abortion issue, if you felt so strongly, then why did you not leave before it passed, because quite frankly, if you do not feel strongly enough about the issue to leave and not rejoin, then don't complain, because it is thus proven by the action of staying that you do and must accept the out-come, or result in showing yourself to be a fool, speaking only to have said something, rather then having said something from having something to say.

:roll: ... Next :wink: :

I have to agree with you. I was ready to leave the Union when that proposal passed and I am afraid if this next proposal to outlaw Nuclear Arms passes I will be forced to leave due to security and economic reasons.

United Nations, not Union,

And quite frankly, if you don't like the U.N. proposal to the extent you felt you should leave, you should have done so, complaining after the fact proves only your inability to be decisive on the matter and hold any valid opinion or argument in the light of the consequence.

So, before I go on, every-one here to complain about the Abortion proposal moves to that side of the room and please remain silent and seated.

The name of this topic says it all.

In essence in the UN we have created a governing body to govern the governing bodies that govern the people.
So who is going to govern the UN?

Uh, I would assume the willing members would act to, ha, "govern" each other.

We truly are moving in the wrong direction. Things need to go the other way to an inter-personal level of governing so that issues on an international scale still get viewed upon from that personal level. Also it goes without saying that if we could govern ourselves first and foremost we would not need a UN or a government so I don't see why another level of governance is needed at all? All it creates ins another level of perspective further away from where problems really take place, at which events can be misjudged.
I feel that the United Nations should be nothing more than an intermediary body in place to help with communication and translation of each others cultures. Not to tell those cultures how to handle their affairs.

The only thing moving in the wrong direction are the fits and spasms of players who don't like what they got and are perpetually rejevanating the same old arguments which swing constantly from the incorrect, to the impossible, to the idiotic, as they will yet, I am sure.

Oh, and while your global village ideals are quite nice, warm, and fluffy, might I remind you that is not the purpose of this U.N. which is here to change this online microcosm, rather then act as some perfect model for world governance and communication.

If you don't want to be "governed" by this U.N., the resign button is a perfectly valid option for you, you have that power, certainly.

And just think, all of you, the U.N. really has given us perfect equality by its contruct...

:wink:

The Un is very corrupt.

Ah, classic example of how and why your arguments always fall down when they come against me, dear OP, nice to see your still kicking though,

:wink:

Note : LordaeronII is the only one yet to possibly be classed as having my respect here judging only on their post here, as such I leave their post be, as I could find little fault with such rational and thought provocative opinion. Bravo, there is some hope here yet, perhaps ?

I would like to second Camexico motion

Then actually do so, but maybe you could actually say something more concrete about it, usually you'll find people like things for a reason, it never hurts to say why, surely...

* ( looks down ) ... :roll:

it is time for a new order....... how can a immoral governing body be keep the world in good shape.......i am calling for a revolution, weather it is done politiacally or with military force.........

I was hard put about this, if I should type " WTF ? " or rather " FFS ! " .

Though, both are probably quite applicable to the above.

Quite frankly, enjoy your little revolution, other in the Int. In. or N.S. Forum, because thats the only way it can or would happen, blessed R.P. with all its wonderful distance, from reality. Might I add I just simply adore how you types make claims or "immorality" and conflict, of all things, with righteous light in your eyes and blood lust in your mouth, it really is...

Quite pathetic and a sorry sign of the youth of today.

A revolution, you say? I am in support of any revolution that doesn't involve me losing power.

Would that be electric or gas ? We certainly seem to infinite supply of ho air here, for sure.

* ( looks down ) ... :shock:

A sane person, here ? That simply not right ! :wink:

I find it hard to take people seriously when they denounce the UN in one breath for allowing a woman the right to choose what to do with her body, and in the next breath the blast the UN for attempting to end the manufacture of nuclear weapons.

Idiots...

And folks, if there is a god, she just sent me a little hope for us all.

That's because is abortion is murder, as anyone not blinded by their hopeless drive to "political correctness" would tell you. And banning nukes is suicide, there's nothing to keep non-UN nations from using them. Careful throwing that word idiots around, especially when it applies to yourself.

I found their calling you an idiot quite politically, hell, scratch that, make it "completely", correct. So as far as I can tell you completely back up their argument, denouncing abortion but promoting the possibility of global genocide. Mutually assured destruction was little more then an action of mutual stupidity and fatality.

So, bravo, I see a true champion of humanity in our midst. :roll:

As is the use of nuclear weapons. You are entitled to your opinion just as everyone else is entitled to theirs. Admittedly you were responding to an insult, but I find it disturbing that a country values its military hardware above its women's right to their body.

They were insulted, I found more a case of ... description, :wink:

Apart from that I find myself in complete agree-ment with you. :)

Well, thats it for now folks, good luck and good night, there is half a cheese and pine-apple pizza demanding my immediate diplomatic recognition, before I invade its territory with my taste buds.

Yours, as ever,

- T.R. Kom
Le Représentant de Komokom.
Ministre Régional de Substance.
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/komokom.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/24401/page=display_nation)
<- Not A Moderator, Just A Know It All.
" Clowns To The Left of Me ... Jokers To The Right, Here I am ... "

That's because is abortion is murder

As is the use of nuclear weapons. You are entitled to your opinion just as everyone else is entitled to theirs. Admittedly you were responding to an insult, but I find it disturbing that a country values its military hardware above its women's right to their body.

Regardless of the issue of abortion (I'll not be getting friends in either camp by stating that I don't think that this is a clear-cut case), I will agree that the use of nuclear weapons is murder, but the posession of weapons should not be out-right outlwed in the way this resolution states.

In an area (e.g. some notorious parts of the US) where housebreaking is rampant, a lot of people choose to own guns to defend their home angainst armed intruders, and I don't think many people have problems with that in a majority of instances.

Yet in an equivalent part of the UK where burgalry is 'common', neither home-owner nor intruder is likely to be armed. The burglar goes in unarmed because he does not expect to be attacked with a gun and the home-owner does not feel it necessary to own a gun because that would (much apart from licencing/purchasing issues, which a determined person could ignore/overcome if they wanted) be 'overkill' (forgive the expression) 99% of the time. If the encounter was lopsided, the legal system tends to act severly against the party who plays 'beyond the rules', and even more so if shots are fired/people are killed. You can drag the case of Tony Martin into this, but that's a whole can of worms with both legal system and public opinion coming into play.

The whole point is that if the burglar is likely to be armed, then you are at least morally allowed to be armed to discourage them. If the burglar wants to use deadly force, then you should be allowed to use deadly force in self-defence. Having the superior weaponry and pre-empively striking an unarmed individual is to be frowned upon heavily, but to be forced to be defenceless (though, in this case, the 'defence' is a psychological one based on the probability of counter-attack) when the villains are known to be armed is stupidity.


The way I see it, if every home-owner (UK, US, Switzerland with it's high gun-carrying figures and low gun-crime rates, Iraq, Russia, Trinidad, New Zealand, wherever) could purchase some form of gun/projectile-neutraliser system to surround their property/selves, then there would be no longer any need for a suitably-equipped individual to possess a gun of their own. Without this, completely banning guns (in countries already rife with weapons being used by villains) just leaves the general population more in danger.

There's better ways of putting this. Basically I'd be happy with a no-nuke situation but would argue against a nuke-banning situation where significant numbers fall outside this remit, as this resolution does.

this is why I don't post in the UN much nowadays - same old pointless topics from states convinced they can change the UN to their benefit when there are 37000 other nations trying to do the exact same thing.

You are a very small fish in the grand scheme of things, there is no point complaining about it.

this is why I don't post in the UN much nowadays - same old pointless topics from states convinced they can change the UN to their benefit when there are 37000 other nations trying to do the exact same thing.

You are a very small fish in the grand scheme of things, there is no point complaining about it.

You know, there are some days when one wakes up and seriously considers " Pulling A Hirota " in regard to all this. I think the only reason I myself still haunt this place is because I lost my mind here and am still loking for it ...

:roll: , Mainly at me ... :)

Oh, Hirota, don't forget how they are completely ignoring rules and game mechanics ...

:wink:

- T.R. Kom
Le Représentant de Komokom.
Ministre Régional de Substance.
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/komokom.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/24401/page=display_nation)
<- Not A Moderator, Just A Know It All.
" Clowns To The Left of Me ... Jokers To The Right, Here I am ... "

The point that ya'll haven't really made yet is that the UN is supposed to be about issues between nations, not about issues within nations. I left the UN a few weeks ago because I became tired of the do-gooders constantly passing resolutions that imposed restrictions on my nation. What's worst, most of the UN resolutions increase your tax rate because someone has to pay for it. That's part of the reason why so many nations have 90% tax and imploded economy.

The issue with the UN isn't about specific resolutions, it's about national soverenty.

:D Youhou ! On vous se péter la gueule !!

What's worst, most of the UN resolutions increase your tax rate because someone has to pay for it. That's part of the reason why so many nations have 90% tax and imploded economy.

no, To be honest, so many nations have such high taxation because they manage their economy so badly.

I'm in the UN, and I'm on 11% I used to be on 8% till I raised my police funding. It's not about the UN, it's mainly poor management.

The only thing moving in the wrong direction are the fits and spasms of players who don't like what they got and are perpetually rejevanating the same old arguments which swing constantly from the incorrect, to the impossible, to the idiotic, as they will yet, I am sure.

Thats a subjective opinion, you can not truly validate your opinion above anyone elses as that is the basis for what you judge others from.
From my opinion you have a defeatest attitude and no peace will ever be attained should we proceed the way we are.

Oh, and while your global village ideals are quite nice, warm, and fluffy, might I remind you that is not the purpose of this U.N. which is here to change this online microcosm, rather then act as some perfect model for world governance and communication.

If you don't want to be "governed" by this U.N., the resign button is a perfectly valid option for you, you have that power, certainly.

And just think, all of you, the U.N. really has given us perfect equality by its contruct...

You argue your point very agressively and it is no wonder why you are against this resolution. But I struggle to see why you feel the need to argue so profusly with a nation with such "nice, warm and fluffy" ideals as this one does. I think you do so simply because our stance is different to yours.
Not really fascilitating the role of negotiator that you pocess.
Even if we do not agree we can still understand, but it is lacking that ability that many of the nations that agree to this resolution fail in.
But being a nation that isn't hypocritical to expect the nations we fear to disarm when we retain nuclear weapons ourselves. We can fully speak with these nations on a different level because they know what we are saying is not coming from a stance of "do this or else" as we have no power, other than that of goood intentions and logic. Which means they don't feel threatened by us challenging them as that is the only "attack" from our nation they will recieve.
This has been represented in the level of terrorist attacks on our nation since taking this position of none aggression

Also the UN is no-where near to being a true microcosm of the nation states. I don't think it's even a microcosm of the nations in the UN.
Especially if your opinion is right and the "fits and spasms of players who don't like what they got and are perpetually rejevanating the same old arguments which swing constantly from the incorrect, to the impossible, to the idiotic, as they will yet, I am sure." is correct.
For if their opinion is swinging from one to the other then wouldn't their votes on resolutions be inconsistant? Therefore the outcome of the resolutions and the rulings of the UN would not be a microcosm of the nations in it. In fact the only similarity would be the inconsistancy of the nations and not the pricipals that it stands for.

What is this organisation if it is not trying to set a standard for us to aspire to?

One thing you are right about is my power to resign, which I will be indulging in should this resolution not pass.
It serves no advantage for the Ekpyrotic Universe to be in the UN if it is not surrounded by other peaceful nations that feel a lack of violence, even the suggestion of it is the only way to achieve an understanding between each nation if not total peace.

We acknowledge the dangers from other nation states and can understand your stance on the matter. But it is from that understanding that we realised by keeping WOMD we are the catalyst to our own demise.

However we are not trying to change your stance in this instance but simply explain our own from a want of mutual understanding. If you are still curious or cinfused by that stance please feel free to contact us.

Wow. Nothing drags me back into the fray like a good 'ol fashion "Boo hoo, the UN did the opposite of what I wanted to, now I'm going to cry" party. Once upon a time I sat down like the grand delegate from Komokom, answering arguments one by one until my voice box imploded. Now, I just shake my head, tell the whiners to leave, and go back to peddling the wares of debate and intellect.

Don't like it? Take your ball and go home. We've got plenty of other people to play right field.

I have concerns with the recently passed "Abortion" resolution. My concern is not out of my beliefs on the issue, but rather the way the resolution was written. It should have more definition.

"Henceforth all women shall have the right to choose whether to have an abortion or not, no member nation will interfere with a woman's right to have an abortion."

What does abortion mean? Does that mean that they can kill their children after they have been born?

My problem is that it was not clear enough, and hence I voted against it because it doesn't represent a "good" or "worthy" resolution.

Exactly, the fact that it passed for that reason alone makes me think we're on shakey ground here logic wise. Next lets vote to make all bad and harmful stuff illegal. Its just that easy.

Come on here people, is there a way to recall that thing and at least give someone a chance to do it right?

Nothing drags me back into the fray like a good 'ol fashion "Boo hoo, the UN did the opposite of what I wanted to, now I'm going to cry" party. Once upon a time I sat down like the grand delegate from Komokom, answering arguments one by one until my voice box imploded. Now, I just shake my head, tell the whiners to leave, and go back to peddling the wares of debate and intellect.

Don't like it? Take your ball and go home. We've got plenty of other people to play right field.

Thankyou. Someone with common sense.

Thats a subjective opinion, you can not truly validate your opinion above anyone elses as that is the basis for what you judge others from.

Uh-huh, now, a brief walk down memory lane shows us ...

The name of this topic says it all.

My Edit : The name of this topic happens to be :

" The U.N. is headed in the wrong direction. "

Wow, the subjective-ness there just came out of no where, right ?

:wink:

:) Oh, and lets not forget other gems, like :

Not to tell those cultures how to handle their affairs.

Yet, at least you are not alone in "subjectivity", :wink:

The Un is very corrupt.

Don't worry, O.P. I still ove you for who you are, :wink:

And, next :

From my opinion you have a defeatest attitude and no peace will ever be attained should we proceed the way we are.

Yes. Of coarse. Because remember kids, its defeatist to not see anything wrong when you know there is not, and try to explain the solid reality of the situation, thats right, []iget those stars in front of your eyes this instant[/i] or Ekpyrotic universe will deal out a spanking.

You argue your point very agressively and it is no wonder why you are against this resolution.

Probably, because :

A) its not a proper resolution, I've not even heard of a resolution of any sort in here, the closet thing I "heard" was "revolution", which although a recognised chaotic and anarchy-based activity for the changing of power, was cerainly darn'd closer to any kind of legal document then the stated,

"Hey, I don't like this ! Lets protest to change it even though lots of people will say we can't, but we'll just ignore them trying to explain the truth to that till we get deleted or they find us and silence us with large knives."

, attitude.

And, B) I am trying to educate people to the reality of the situation before another bunch of probably new players get sucked into this misguided pipe dream, its these kind of rabid "the player is ALWAYS right" attitudes that gets so many people who could have made apositive contribution to the game and the player society sucked down into the murky pathh of an moderator, and any-one else who will listen, bothering extremist.

But I struggle to see why you feel the need to argue so profusly with a nation with such "nice, warm and fluffy" ideals as this one does. I think you do so simply because our stance is different to yours.

1) The "warm, fluffy" bit? Sarcasm. Just one of my tools I plot to use and try to hone here for my abitions for world domination.

:wink:

2) I argue not because your stance is different, I debate it because when I judge it compared to the physical realities of the situation, look at objectively, and weigh it with what I have learned in nearly a year here of examining the rules, I find it lacking.

Not really fascilitating the role of negotiator that you pocess.

Well, your either new here or being willing ignorant to prove a point. I am assuming out of kindness though that you are new, so here is at least one little pearl of wisdom you may carry away from here even if nothing else I say can penetrate your walls of will.

Those words, negotiator and the like? Form up depending on the number of posts on the forums you have made. Unless, through that competition in general, you have won a custom name. Like The Atheist Reality's "Smoot Operator" title,

( Damn them, say I with a green glint in my eyes :wink: )

Even if we do not agree we can still understand, but it is lacking that ability that many of the nations that agree to this resolution fail in.

That sentance made no sense to me, it sounded like you were saying the the nations who agree to this, well, the best term I can use here is " Act of some sort or something against the U.N. " lact the ability to understand ...

Which would be correct, they all seem to lack he ability, to grasp the rules and the simplicity of the fact that the U.N. in its current form will not change.

Which would make it very odd, cause then we would be agree-ing, :wink:

But being a nation that isn't hypocritical to expect the nations we fear to disarm when we retain nuclear weapons ourselves. We can fully speak with these nations on a different level because they know what we are saying is not coming from a stance of "do this or else" as we have no power, other than that of goood intentions and logic. Which means they don't feel threatened by us challenging them as that is the only "attack" from our nation they will recieve.
This has been represented in the level of terrorist attacks on our nation since taking this position of none aggression

* Halts bang-ing of head against asylum wall for but a moment to say :

News-flash, there is a thig know as the I.G.N.O.R.E. action or I.G.N.O.R.E cannon/s, by which such threats and "acts"being only Role Play elements, you can tell them in a very polite manner to "fob off, your not playing like that".

Also the UN is no-where near to being a true microcosm of the nation states. I don't think it's even a microcosm of the nations in the UN.

* Continues to bang head against wall while saying :

I remind you that is not the purpose of this U.N. which is here to change this online microcosm, rather then act as some perfect model for world governance and communication.

I was saying Nation States itself was an online microcosm, not the bloody U.N. I thought at least that was clear, I meant that Nation States s an " online microcosm " of the world in the fact so many diverse people around the world prticipate of it.

Especially if your opinion is right and the "fits and spasms of players who don't like what they got and are perpetually rejevanating the same old arguments which swing constantly from the incorrect, to the impossible, to the idiotic, as they will yet, I am sure." is correct.
For if their opinion is swinging from one to the other then wouldn't their votes on resolutions be inconsistant? Therefore the outcome of the resolutions and the rulings of the UN would not be a microcosm of the nations in it. In fact the only similarity would be the inconsistancy of the nations and not the pricipals that it stands for.

Jesus, yes people, "Jesus", he made the atheist crack and say "Jesus"

:wink:

Okay, I was, ( I thought plainly ) making note of the fact that the only thing I find wrong with the U.N. though I should have really said U.N. Forum, because that is all this stuff ever really effects, is that there seems to be an on-going influx of people who want there say, have their say done, and to hell with all who dis-agree or try to explain the reality of it all, reality being a word I found myself making referance to more and more often lately.

What is this organisation if it is not trying to set a standard for us to aspire to?

Too easy, not fair on you, I'll let some one else handle that, browse the site yourself and you might just read about it yourself.

One thing you are right about is my power to resign, which I will be indulging in should this resolution not pass.

Nice meeting you. Bye. Read the rules, + sticky threads, + F.A.Q.

* Resists urge to break into " Hit the F.A.Q. Jack, and don't you come back, no more, no more, no more, no more, hit the F.A.Q. Jack ... "

:wink:

It serves no advantage for the Ekpyrotic Universe to be in the UN if it is not surrounded by other peaceful nations that feel a lack of violence, even the suggestion of it is the only way to achieve an understanding between each nation if not total peace.

Ah, fluffy warm self approving rhetoric. :)

We acknowledge the dangers from other nation states and can understand your stance on the matter. But it is from that understanding that we realised by keeping WOMD we are the catalyst to our own demise.

I don't have a stance, not one you understand that is, becuase I fear the idea of an idiot telegramming me with the words "I NOOKZ U " about as much I fear the dentist.

My possible stance in this thread is only that I wish more people would read the rules and educate them-selves about something before running around pro-claimming the sky and a few tons of radio-activity is falling. When quite frankly if they just did the already said self education would learn the why, the how, or lack of how, and move on with their lives and enjoy the game with-out their flights of fancy proposed "modifications".

However we are not trying to change your stance in this instance but simply explain our own from a want of mutual understanding. If you are still curious or cinfused by that stance please feel free to contact us.

Easy. In the interests of under-standing one another better, you and all your little change the U.N. buddies can go read the F.A.Q. the rules, the sticky threads, and ask Moderators or Administration, via email, why game mechanics changes, what you are all proposing, are impossible.

"Jesus", I never thought I would get through all that. :D

And before I forget, hence an edit or two, Sophista baby, hold still and I might just kiss you !

- T.R. Kom
Le Représentant de Komokom.
Ministre Régional de Substance.
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/komokom.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/24401/page=display_nation)
<- Not A Moderator, Just A Know It All.
" Clowns To The Left of Me ... Jokers To The Right, Here I am ... "

I don't feel the need to disect every word you've said.
Simply the subjectiveness of my comments was always in context of explaining my own position.
I never said "you are wrong!" as it was quite evident from the opinions that I had displayed. But then even that only suggests that 'I think you are wrong!' and not a statement of 'You are wrong!'.
Your statement of "you are wrong" was quite obviously your opinion before writing it. Therefore I presume you meant it as factual statement that has no comprimise.
Also my comments on the 'microcosm that is the UN' was in referrence to the nation states UN not the actual real life UN, hence why I included your comments about the players changing their opinions in there and then commented on it. Although it could apply to both NS-UN and the actual UN on some levels.

I think if you were really so sure in your opinion you would not feel the need to attach belittling comments to nearly every thing you say bordering on being insulting.
Although you may find my peaceful views insulting they are not directed at you and were not formed to specifically contradict yours. Infact your opinions were unknown when they were formalised.

I am trying to educate people to the reality of the situation before another bunch of probably new players get sucked into this misguided pipe dream

If you were truly trying to educate then you would not insult your student.

We can accept that our opinion does not tally with yours and that our belief of non-aggresion is not shared. That is clear now and no more discussion is needed.

I must comment on the fact that I seem to be getting riduculed to an extent I've not witnessed before for having pacifist ideals. Especially when comments like "I love Nukes" and such go unnoticed.

If you're not happy with the UN, consider this type of alternative http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=146905

Or join the International Congress (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=152436)!

It has come to my attention that the U.N. is no longer under my control. It seems that the U.N. is more interested in doing things I don't like then doing things I like...... I beleive that the recent passing of the abortion resolution outlines my point clearly.......

You had a little typo there. :)

I don't feel the need to disect every word you've said.

Ditto, and no need to feel special, I usually use the quote function to seperate arguments into blocks of text thus making it easier for me to plan out my points and easier for the reader to understand exactly what I am talking about. It usually works quite well ...

Simply the subjectiveness of my comments was always in context of explaining my own position.

Uh-huh, and I was pointing out yours calls of subjective to be what I saw as the pot calling the kettle black.

I never said "you are wrong!" as it was quite evident from the opinions that I had displayed. But then even that only suggests that 'I think you are wrong!' and not a statement of 'You are wrong!'.

And I never said you were wrong, I said you were incorrect, and I tried to fix that. I also was trying more so then that to point out the origin of this debate itself was incorrct in proposing actions which were quite impossible.

Your statement of "you are wrong" was quite obviously your opinion before writing it. Therefore I presume you meant it as factual statement that has no comprimise.

Probably, as considering the grasp I have on the rules, the past actions of Moderation regarding such matters, and my little habit of going through all past passed proposals with a fine tooth comb, I figured I was pretty much spot on the money.

Also my comments on the 'microcosm that is the UN' was in referrence to the nation states UN not the actual real life UN, hence why I included your comments about the players changing their opinions in there and then commented on it. Although it could apply to both NS-UN and the actual UN on some levels.

And I was commenting that your use of "microcosm" and that which was connected to it was different from my original one and looked alot like an mis-reading of my post.

I think if you were really so sure in your opinion you would not feel the need to attach belittling comments to nearly every thing you say bordering on being insulting.

Oh please, if your going to try to gain sympathy with the non-existent at least try to do it in a away as to not be a blatant attempt to drag my name through the mud, and for your own sake in a way as not to remove what shreds of credibility you have.

Although you may find my peaceful views insulting they are not directed at you and were not formed to specifically contradict yours. Infact your opinions were unknown when they were formalised.

Quiet frankly, I personally do not give a flying fish as to your "peaceful views" in this thread, I never did nor is it likely I ever will,

Because I was trying again and again to make it clear the idea of a new U.N. being formed or the current one dramatically changed in the vague and opinionated ways presented by others was simply not going to happen any time soon. That this is a fact.

Yet, you seemed hell bent on dragging the fact you had "peaceful views" into every post relating to mine, in what looked to be a very bad attempt at painting me as some pro-militant with extremist views while giving some kind of body, no matter how irrelevant, to your unrealistic comments defending the idea of the "new U.N.".

I am trying to educate people to the reality of the situation before another bunch of probably new players get sucked into this misguided pipe dream

If you were truly trying to educate then you would not insult your student.

Oh please, if half these people were my students I'd be hollering for the cane by now. I was not aware I had insulted any-body, granted, I spoke against certain ideas and opinions, I personally apologise if you formed your own perceptions to being insulted, albeit that it is not my fault had you done so.

We can accept that our opinion does not tally with yours and that our belief of non-aggresion is not shared. That is clear now and no more discussion is needed.

And, again and again, we see you contstantly errecting the same old claim against me, and so for the last time I will say this :

I am in no way talking of your opinion, or mine, on "non-aggresion". I was debating over the thread promoting the possibilty of certain dramatic changes to the Nation States game United Nations, which were impossible.

If you choose to continue to raise all this "non-aggresion" business to act as space filler in relation to your other comments feel free to, because I will certainly be I.G.N.O.R.E.'ing it and getting on with point of debate related to the matter at hand which is the topic of this thread and the evolving mis-conceptions on the possibility of physical change to the hard-programmed U.N. system.

I must comment on the fact that I seem to be getting riduculed to an extent I've not witnessed before for having pacifist ideals. Especially when comments like "I love Nukes" and such go unnoticed.

And please, stop trying to personalise this debate, if you can't handle people not agree-ing from the word go to oyour way of things, no matter how correct you see it, don't try to drag in the unrelated, wave it above your head as a distraction, and shout " bad men, ! bad men ! " at us. That is if you want to retain any of your own credibility in this matter and others.

- T.R. Kom
Le Représentant de Komokom.
Ministre Régional de Substance.
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/komokom.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_nation/nation=komokom)
<- Not A Moderator, Just A Know It All.
" Clowns To The Left of Me ... Jokers To The Right, Here I am ... "